CCC defence for PCN time changes

jo2394585494

Particulars attached. I have notice that they have only given one time would I put this in the defence?

Coupon-mad

Paragraph 5 isn't even grammatical!  What do they teach in a law degree these days?!

jo2394585494

Coupon-mad said:

Paragraph 5 isn't even grammatical!  What do they teach in a law degree these days?!

@Coupon-mad which defence do you recommend I take?? 

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Same as the other QDR ones with that POC!

jo2394585494

amended based on advice below.

Coupon-mad

In the 'County Court' is correct because the CNBC is merely a gateway admin centre and won't be heard there.

'POC' is fine because it is already explained in the Template at para 2.  Only admit to being the keeper.

I'd be saying in your facts section in para 3 of the Template Defence:

3. The location is a petrol station and this facility has only ever been used properly (not abused) by the Defendant and other family members who drive the car.  It is denied that the vehicle would have been 'parked' and left at this location for a pronged period and it is neither admitted or denied that the Defendant was driving, because it is too long ago to know and there is no evidence.

3.1.  No fewer than five paragraphs in the POC (served separately last week) generically presume that the Defendant was the driver (see paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, some of which are so ungrammatical that they give away the cut-and-paste model used by QDR).  This is not nearly enough for a cause of action against the Defendant as a registered keeper. The Claimant noticeably fails to state whether the Claimant can (or intends to) rely upon the 'keeper liability' provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA').  The Claimant has been shown in other cases, not to always use a POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper, in which case there can be no keeper liability.  This is a second document following the claim and it is woefully inadequate and in breach of the CPRs regarding statements of case.  The Defendant would normally ask for further and better POC but is left wondering exactly how many chances is this Claimant expecting to be afforded to plead its case properly.  The Defendant still cannot tell what the allegation is, how long the car was supposedly there on the two dates, what the terms were nor even the basis of the claim against them (the registered keeper) which requires full compliance with the POFA and is not automatic. What is the 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'?  The Claimant does not appear to think this is important and has not pleaded a sufficiently detailed cause of action. As such, the claim should be struck out. 

3.2.  There is a sub-heading in the supposedly 'detailed POC' which says 'The Contract and the Breach' but the Claimant then gives virtually no details!  Nothing about how long the alleged 'overstays' were, nor even a statement outlining the terms on the sign (the contract), an image of which they could easily have attached, but did not.  They are relying upon ANPR or CCTV  'in/out' timings and could also have stated those times in this POC, to narrow the issues, but they did not. This is of particular concern because the Defendant believes that the time limit suddenly and inexplicably changed (to the detriment of consumers) at some point.  This was done in breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which requires prominent 'additional' signage to be added to a site when terms change.  The Defendant avers that there were no additional signs put up during the changeover period, and there never has been a sign at the entrance.

3.3.  If this claim squeezes past allocation stage scrutiny, it is submitted that the court may conclude that a shortened maximum time (no doubt suggested not by the landowner but by this Claimant to make more money from the site, because there can be no other explanation for changing it) is an unfair term in circumstances involving a petrol station. Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer. The requirement of 'good' faith embodies a general 'principle of fair and open dealing' and terms that might disadvantage the consumer must be given appropriate prominence (ref: the Consumer Rights Act 2015).  Attention is also drawn to s71: the court's duty.  The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding when - and their justification as to why - the 'max stay' time was halved and which signs were up when. The Defendant calls for landowner-authorised maps, evidence of the reason for the new terms and when/why these were agreed by the landowner, and time-stamped images of the mandatory additional signs to communicate the unexpected change to regular patrons used to the old terms. 

3.4.  Even if they show all of this in evidence, the Defendant takes the point that the rationale that saved the charge in ParkingEye v Beavis from being held to be a penalty, is disapplied.  Unlike in a retail park with a 2 hour stay and parking bays, there can be no 'legitimate interest' in a parking charge against cars using a petrol station facility.  By definition, this is a place where drivers using the facility for 15 - 30 minutes or so, as part of the normal conduct of getting from A - B on a journey by car, are not 'parked'.  It is likely that by unilaterally reducing the free stay time, hundreds of innocent law-abiding drivers per month are now being penalised here for filling up with fuel, petrol or water. Visits may involve all of the above, including queues and then picking up bread/milk/snacks for a journey or other essentials in the attached small Waitrose store.

3.5.  Yet the Defendant is left to guess which terms applied when and how long these alleged overstays even were.  The claim is woefully inadequate. The Defendant also knows from a BPA article that ANPR technology is flawed in the hands of private firms and absent more information and timings, these events could be examples of what the Government's new incoming Code calls a 'double dip' (two short visits in a 24 hour period assumed to be one).  The Defendant reserves the right to respond to whatever new information arises in the case, if it is not struck out in view of the above failings.

jo2394585494

I have amended the details and added the paragraphs you suggested above.

Do I not include any of the more contextual information above specific dates above? 


Thanks in advanced.

KeithP

jo2394585494 said:

Do I not include any of the more contextual information above specific dates above? 

That follows in your Witness Statement, together with evidence.
Some months away.

Coupon-mad

jo2394585494 said:

I have amended the details and added the paragraphs you suggested above.

Do I not include any of the more contextual information above specific dates above? 

Thanks in advanced.

Nope - just put what I said as para 3 and only admit to being the keeper in para 2.

jo2394585494

I have completed the N180 form online. Apparently a print version was sent to my home but I don't remember receiving it.

I've emailed it to the processing centre but it says I need to to send a copy to the claimant (Europarks). Does anyone know what their email is?

Thanks.