URGENT HELP! HMCTS Defence [MCOL] against PCN from Euro Car Parks at BP Connect - Gatwick Airport

DNBM

Am in a bit of panic with one day remaining before my opportunity to defend this PCN from Euro Car Parks [via QDR Solicitors] [2 PCNs actually - both wrapped up in one Claim number] runs out. I have submitted the AOS [indicated on MCOL] but now need my defense submitted before getting the 'chop'!

The driver did attend site to get fuel and then shop at integrated Waitrose mini-store and then remained on site with his coffee for clearly too long...."YOUR VEHICLE WAS PARKED LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWED"

Is there a worthy defense? Keeper never received original PCNs in the post and has no photographic evidence to refer to either.

Castle

So what do the detailed POC's say?

DNBM

Thank you for responding - really appreciate that - will send info below

DNBM

In this one the Keeper is one person but is not the driver [2 PCNs] under one claim

There is another, identical in all regards, where the Keeper is different also with 2 x PCNs - same place/same Claimant and same ammount claimed.

Need defences [today] for both Claim nos - have checked with HMCTS the dates {for both] when Defences are needed by....before 4pm tmrw....!!

DNBM

For more clarity....

Claim issued on 16/02/2024

AOS submitted on 21/02/24 @ 00:35:43 - a late night....

AOS acknowledgement received by MCOL on 21/02/2024 @08:05:57

Both AOSs [for both Claim nos] almost identical dates & timings

Coupon-mad

OK so use the Template Defence.

At the end of para 2 state clearly (if true) that it is denied that the Defendant was the driver on either of the two occasions. 

And for paragraph 3 put:

3.  It is denied that the Defendant is liable or that the Claimant is able to rely on the keeper liability provisions that apply elsewhere at some 'private land' sites.  The location given appears to be under statutory control (Airport byelaws apply) and this would not be 'relevant land'.  As the Defendant was not the driver, there can be no cause of action.  The Defendant only learned about the events the following month, when two Notice to Keeper letters arrived from the Claimant but they were not worded in a way that could transfer liability to the Defendant.  Further, the supposedly 'detailed POC' (and pre-action letters) provide no image of the contract (sign) nor any information about how long the alleged overstay was, and if minimal, why no fair grace period was allowed.  Time spent at a petrol station mainly consists of driving, queuing and then stopping to fuel the vehicle, not a 'period of parking'. Absent any evidence of prominent signage and the total time the driver spent actually 'parked', the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any breach of a relevant contract or relevant obligation; either way the Defendant is not the person who can be pursued for it.

Coupon-mad

If the other one involves a keeper who WAS driving then DO NOT DENY DRIVING in the other defence of course.  Say less.

DNBM

I truly do not know who the driver was on the occasions that attracted these 4 x PCNs - it was a while ago and without seeing images of the driver it is impossible to determine with absolute certainly since a number of individuals are permitted and entitled to drive the two vehicles [different VRNs of course]. Does that make a difference and should I mention such in my defence submission on MCOL

Coupon-mad

You aren't submitting a defence on MCOL.

DNBM

I was going to complete the online Defence facility that is provided on the HMCTS site - same area as the AOS was submitted - is that a mistake?

This bit....

Response Forms

Continue Defence

Delete

If you dispute the whole claim or wish to make a claim (a counterclaim) against the claimant, complete the defence form.

Coupon-mad

Clearly a mistake.  Both the NEWBIES thread and Template Defence thread tell you NOT to.