Time Sensitive - Alleged Overstay, ECP, 2 PCNs, Defence Drafted, Request for Feedback

Ronald157

Hi All,

I do apologise for posting this at a rather unsavoury time of day and within 14 hours of the 28 + 5 day limit to file a defence.

If someone could be ever so kind as to offer a little feedback as to the validity of the defence and whether there is anything else that could be included/excluded, I would be exceptionally grateful.

To keep it brief:

- AOS filed 06/03, claim date 22/02

- Breach: alleged overstay on two occasions filed as one claim by ECP/QDR, no info on entry/exit times or length of overstay

- At the time the defendant was using the gym situated within the retail park and was entirely unaware of the 3-hour free parking limit until PCNs received in post, no easily observable signs at entrance to car park besides opening times. 

- All debt collection letters avoided, attempt to resolve with owner of retail park with no success, verbal complaint made to retail facility with no success. 

-  Circa £500 claimed

Defence from paragraph 3 onwards:

3. Neither the Letter Before Claim nor the supposedly 'detailed Particulars Of Claim' has specified the purported overstay in either duration or entry and exit times. It is suggested that these could be instances of a ‘double dip’ ANPR error, especially in consideration of the time of day when the ANPR images were taken (20:06 and 22:08) where visibility was low. This is known in the industry as an inherent and well-documented likely flaw of ANPR, which cannot be relied upon to sign off a PCN without human checks.  AOS members are required to carry out manual checks to discount the possibility of 'orphan images' in the middle, denoting two visits within 24 hours, wrongly read as one period of parking (for example to return something, or to purchase a forgotten item). Given that ANPR defaults to 'first in, last out' images, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all ANPR captures of the vehicle onsite that day and of their documented human checks before this PCN was issued. The Claimant is also to put strict proof of the prominence of the contractual signage, as well as evidence of the alleged breaches, and is further required to address the inconsistencies in their POC which states that the Defendant had visited multiple “Sites”, a statement that conflicts with the facts known to the Defendant and the Claimant’s (the alleged breach could only have taken place the “Site” stated in paragraph 1 of the) POC.

4. The Defendant is unable to recall the specific details that led to the alleged breach of contract and associated ‘parking charges’ issued, as the dates in question are each unremarkable from 15 months ago. However, the Defendant at the time had been recovering from the complications of three lower-limb surgical interventions and administering physiotherapy and light exercise to ameliorate pain and suffering endured. Consequently, the Defendant was necessitated by way of maintaining mental and physical health to routinely make use of the most suitable health and wellness facilities within a reasonable distance of the Defendant’s residence. To be deprived of the full use of these facilities at the time of the alleged breach would constitute further deterioration and potential damage to the mental health of the Defendant.

 

*Defence continued as recommended in template*

Please help if you can!

Ronald157

Here are the POC:

Coupon-mad

I'd add that it is denied that any 'contractual charges' were incurred or paid by this Claimant and there is also no evidence of 'damages'.  Further, the detailed POC are utterly incoherent and having used a cut & paste template, QDR has a table saying both PCNs were for 'overstay' yet paragraph 5 contradicts this and says the breaches were for parking 'without a valid permit' which is a completely different allegation.  These POC are wholly inadequate and should be struck out for a failure to comply with CPR 16 (Statements of Case), as has been held in multiple cases in this link:

Judgments

Under CPR 3.4(2)(c) - and as seen in those judgments which (apart from the 'lead' persuasive appeal case of Civil Enforcement v Chan shown first) required no application by the Defendants - the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. The court may determine to strike out a statement of case of its own initiative.

Castle

Para 7(a) refers to a singular parking charge of £180 and only one breach of contract.

Coupon-mad

Wow it's a mess isn't it?!

Castle

Written by a "Chatbot" perhaps?

Ronald157

Thank you @Coupon-mad, you're a lifesaver. And @Castle, much appreciated, I will bring that up in the hearing (if it ever gets there of course)!

Will update the thread in due course.

Thanks again