PCM CLAIM NORTHAMPTON COURT PCN DATING 2021

KofKof95

Hi Experts,

I received a claim from the courts about a pcn that was received 31/05/2021, I was visiting a relative to simply collect some gifts that were bought for me. Apparently I was in breach of contract, upon receiving the ticket I ignored it and did not receive any further communication until 19/02/2024 about a claim, I did not receive no "letter before claim"also.I have submitted a AoS today on the 27/02/2024 to build a defence, I have also emailed PCM a subject access request. Moving forward can anyone please advise me what I can do next? attached is the claim letter.

Debszzzz2

The SAR should not have been requested as you have a very vlid reason to get this claim throw out at allocation stage because the particulars must unequivocally specify the conduct leading to the formation of the contract and the consequent actions.

The PoC in the above claim form fail to properly set out the key details in the case, including the specific contractual terms relied upon, details of the alleged breach, and quantification of the claimed losses - in breach of Civil Procedure Rules 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7.

Please read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread and the template defence thread. You will need the defence that includes the CEL v Chan transcripts as a preliminary matter.

KofKof95

HiDebszzzz2 said:

The SAR should not have been requested as you have a very vlid reason to get this claim throw out at allocation stage because the particulars must unequivocally specify the conduct leading to the formation of the contract and the consequent actions.

The PoC in the above claim form fail to properly set out the key details in the case, including the specific contractual terms relied upon, details of the alleged breach, and quantification of the claimed losses - in breach of Civil Procedure Rules 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7.

Please read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread and the template defence thread. You will need the defence that includes the CEL v Chan transcripts as a preliminary matter.

Thanks for the response I really appreciate your help, so me submitting the SAR form will cause a problem for my defence? and will do

Debszzzz2

Submitting a SAR at this stage will not have any real effect on your defence. It's just that by requesting a SAR at this stage, you are in effect doing the PPCs dirty work for them by trying to clarify the already woefully inadequate PoC. Don't worry about it.

So the AoS and then start on your defence using the template defence that includes the CEL v Chan transcript. Just show us the amended paragraphs when you are ready. If you have to add more paragraphs, they will have to be numbered and all subsequent paragraphs renumbered.

KofKof95

how does this look?

DEFENCE

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant: 

1. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4 images of CEL v Chan

3. The Defendant vaguely remembers on the day in question he went to visit a relative to receive gifts that were purchased and parked in the residential car park. Upon returning to his vehicle the defendant noticed he had received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

4. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked.The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract which is nearly 5 years old the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN

KofKof95

Debszzzz2 said:

Submitting a SAR at this stage will not have any real effect on your defence. It's just that by requesting a SAR at this stage, you are in effect doing the PPCs dirty work for them by trying to clarify the already woefully inadequate PoC. Don't worry about it.

So the AoS and then start on your defence using the template defence that includes the CEL v Chan transcript. Just show us the amended paragraphs when you are ready. If you have to add more paragraphs, they will have to be numbered and all subsequent paragraphs renumbered.

thanks for your response, check out what I came up with

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 25th March 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Nellymoser

Didn't receive all PPC's letters...please support this.
So many people don't receive 1st and/or 2nd pcn but the £170 payment due letter often manages to drop through letter boxes. PPCs always claim discounted/full rate pcns/court claim letters were sent as dated though they offer no evidence to prove this.

Since they CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting we must continue to press gov to ensure they do and see it included in the new Parking CoP. Please sign/share @jmccabe petition closes 22nd june 2024.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355
Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable
Thank you and good luck

KofKof95

Hi can anyone feedback to me on what I wrote 

Le_Kirk

Firstly, if you are using the CEL v Chan, make sure that you use it as written, you have missed a paragraph number.  Secondly I would rewrite the paragraph below as it sounds like the presents were parked in the residential car park!  Thirdly, if you are using Chan, it is presumably because the POC are sparse or vague, therefore I would not do the claimant's job for them by even mentioning signage (it is already in the defence template anyway so can be backed up and supported in the WS if required) and just state you parked in the area.

3. The Defendant vaguely remembers on the day in question he went to visit a relative to receive gifts that were purchased and parked in the residential car park. Upon returning to his vehicle the defendant noticed he had received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

 

nopcns

It's fine except that each paragraph should be numbered sequentially. First para after "Defence" should be para #1.

Next should be the "preliminary matter" as paras #2 and #3 followed by the embedded images of the CEL v Chan transcript. Next should be "facts known to the defendant" as para #4 and then your two paras as #5 and #6. Then the rest of the template defence with all subsequent paras renumbered sequentially if necessary.