DCBLegal LoC UkPCL

32one

Can I include a picture of the parking space in my defence?

Le_Kirk

No evidence goes with a defence; keep it for later inclusion in your witness statement.  Providing you refer to it in the defence that will be allowed.

LDast

If you are being pursued as the keeper, maybe you should include the following preliminary matter for the allocation judge to throw out the claim:

Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

Coupon-mad

Yep, add that, plus the quote that I said to find in the DLUHC Code about consideration periods.

32one

Thanks All

Can you please review my defence and let me know if it can be used? Thank you in advance 

2. The Defendant parked their motorcycle in a narrow, un-marked area unusable by cars, effectively freeing up a car parking space. However, upon returning to their motorcycle, they were informed by the parking attendant that a ticket had been issued electronically using a self-ticketing service.

3. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a 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 motorist.

4. The Claimant, a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. is alleged by the Defendant to have breached clause 13.1 of the 9th edition of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). This clause states that the driver must have a chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into a parking contract with the operator. If the driver chooses to leave the car park after having this opportunity, the operator must provide a reasonable consideration period before the parking contract is binding and a parking charge notice (PCN) can be issued. The CoP mandates a "minimum consideration period" of 5 minutes.

5. The Defendant contends that their Motorcycle entered the relevant land at 4:20 pm (as evidenced by motorcycle GPS location) and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 pm according to their time-stamped photograph(self ticketing system). This timeframe represents a total duration of 4 minutes. Since the PCN was issued before the mandatory 5-minute consideration period elapsed, the Defendant argues that the operator is in breach of the BPA CoP

Another question please 
The PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) was issued via a self-ticketing service. I'm wondering if there are any regulations I can use in my defence? 

LDast

32one said:

Thanks All

Can you please review my defence and let me know if it can be used? Thank you in advance 

2. The Defendant parked their motorcycle in a narrow, un-marked area unusable by cars, effectively freeing up a car parking space. However, upon returning to their motorcycle, they were informed by the parking attendant that a ticket had been issued electronically using a self-ticketing service.

3. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a 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 motorist.

4. The Claimant, a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, alleges that the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), 9th edition, clause 13.1, was breached. This clause states that the driver must have a chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into a parking contract with the operator. If the driver chooses to leave the car park after having this opportunity, the operator must provide a reasonable consideration period before the parking contract is binding and a parking charge notice (PCN) can be issued. The CoP mandates a "minimum consideration period" of 5 minutes.

The Claimant contends that their Motorcycle entered the relevant land at 4:20 pm (as evidenced by motorcycle GPS location) and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 pm according to their time-stamped photograph(self ticketing system). This timeframe represents a total duration of 4 minutes. Since the PCN was issued before the mandatory 5-minute consideration period elapsed, the Claimant argues that the operator is in breach of the BPA CoP

Another question please 
The PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) was issued via a self-ticketing service. I'm wondering if there are any regulations I can use in my defence? 

If you're going to format it, please format it properly with the addition of the info as advised:

1. 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').

Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

The facts as known to the Defendant

3. 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.

4. The Defendant parked their motorcycle in a narrow, un-marked area unusable by cars, effectively freeing up a car parking space. However, upon returning to their motorcycle, they were informed by the parking attendant that a ticket had been issued electronically using a self-ticketing service.

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a 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 motorist.

6. The Claimant, a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, alleges that the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), 9th edition, clause 13.1, was breached. This clause states that the driver must have a chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into a parking contract with the operator. If the driver chooses to leave the car park after having this opportunity, the operator must provide a reasonable consideration period before the parking contract is binding and a parking charge notice (PCN) can be issued. The CoP mandates a "minimum consideration period" of 5 minutes.

7. The Claimant contends that their Motorcycle entered the relevant land at 4:20 pm (as evidenced by motorcycle GPS location) and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 pm according to their time-stamped photograph(self ticketing system). This timeframe represents a total duration of 4 minutes. Since the PCN was issued before the mandatory 5-minute consideration period elapsed, the Claimant argues that the operator is in breach of the BPA CoP


You need to number every paragraph sequentially. In your example above, para #3 is missing... why? In para #6, it is a bit confusing. You state that the claimant "alleges that their own CoP at 13.1 was breached". Are you saying that the claimant breached their own CoP or are you saying that the defendant breached the BPA CoP? It reads as though you are saying that the claimant is alleging you breached the BPA CoP which is illogical.

Attention to detail is important in these matters.

Coupon-mad

Change:

The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

to

The small signage was not sufficiently prominent to alert a motorist.

32one

Hi All, thank you very much for your help. Could you please take a final look at my defence and let me know if there's anything I should add or remove? The paragraphs I added are in bold. Thank you in advance. 

DEFENCE

1.    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 license 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').

Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out

2.    The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a  creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

The facts known to the Defendant:

3.    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 appears 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.

4.    The Defendant briefly stopped their motorcycle in a narrow, un-marked area (unusable by cars but not a pedestrian space), effectively freeing up a car parking space. No PCN was affixed to the vehicle but there was an individual lurking and it seems they took covert photographs.  This was not a case of fair and open dealing and this rip-off was reminiscent of how clampers used to behave before that conduct was made a criminal offence.

5.    The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a 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 sufficiently prominent to alert a motorist.

6.    The Claimant, a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. is alleged by the Defendant to have breached clause 13.1 of the 9th edition of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). This clause states that the driver must have a chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into a parking contract with the operator. If the driver chooses to leave the car park after having this opportunity, the operator must provide a reasonable consideration period before the parking contract is binding and a parking charge notice (PCN) can be issued. The CoP mandates a "minimum consideration period" of 5 minutes.

7.    The Defendant contends that their Motorcycle entered the relevant land at 4:20 pm (as evidenced by motorcycle GPS location) and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 pm according to their time-stamped photograph (self-ticketing system). This timeframe represents a total duration of 4 minutes. Since the PCN was issued before the mandatory 5-minute consideration period elapsed, the Defendant argues that the operator is in breach of the BPA CoP.

Coupon-mad

No need to show us the lower two thirds of the template defence. We know what it says!

I'd change 4 from this:

4.    The Defendant parked their motorcycle in a narrow, un-marked area unusable by cars, effectively freeing up a car parking space. However, upon returning to their motorcycle, they were informed by the parking attendant that a ticket had been issued electronically using a self-ticketing service.

to this:

4.    The Defendant briefly stopped their motorcycle in a narrow, un-marked area (unusable by cars but not a pedestrian space), effectively freeing up a car parking space. No PCN was affixed to the vehicle but there was an individual lurking and it seems they took covert photographs.  This was not a case of fair and open dealing and this rip-off was reminiscent of how clampers used to behave before that conduct was made a criminal offence.

32one

Hi everyone, I'm going on vacation soon, from July 5th to the 28th. To avoid missing any important court documents, could you please advise me on the best course of action? Thank you in advance