Claim Form Received for Private PCN

Clunes1986

Hi, I new member here looking for some help and guidance to fight a Private PCN please. Apologies for the long post 😊.

I have received a Claim Form (N1SDT) dated 17th April 2024. I have completed an AoS using the MCOL site, which was submitted on 28/04/2024 and received 29/04/2024.

The POC state:

1.       The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXX XXX

2.       The PCN(s) were issued on 25/03/2023

3.       The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Without A Valid Pay and Display (or Prepay Arrangement) (ANPR)

4.       In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4 AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.       £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2.       Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgement or sooner payment.

3.       Costs and court fees

£174.36 is the amount claimed, £35 Court Fee and £50 Legal representative’s costs. Totalling £259.36!

I have drafted my defence using the Template Defence as per the below, along with Sections 4 onwards which I have renumbered. Does this cover everything or is there anything else I should add or remove for the Witness Statement? Then once complete I need to print off, sign, scan back in and email ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk?

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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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 but not the driver.

3. The Defendants vehicle (XXXX XXX) was at the XXXXXXXXX on the 25/03/2023, however the Defendant was not the driver. A parking ticket was purchased using the Tap2Park app which covered the duration that the Vehicle was in the carpark and there was no overstay. There was however an issue with downloading the email receipt from Tap2Park for the parking, although an email confirmation was received at the time. On later investigation, the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) of the Vehicle in question was not entered into the Tap2Pay app, instead A VRN for another vehicle the driver regularly used (XXXX XXX) was entered in error. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff to cover the parking was paid. Therefore, the Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge or penalty, not least because a correct parking charge or tariff, sufficient to cover the period of parking, had been paid.

4. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. In this case the VRN was entered for a different vehicle, to which the Defendant is also the registered keeper, which if I PARK SERVICES LTD check their records will see did not enter the car park at all.

5. The principle of de minimis applies here, namely that this is a legal action for technical breaches of rules or agreements where the impact of the breach is negligible.

6. The ticket bought with good intention appropriately covered the time period that the car was parked. Therefore, the claimant has not suffered any loss. The BPA encourages drivers to use the correct registration but also encourages operators to waive minor breaches where such a breach is a minor error and not related to non payment as was the case here.

KeithP

Clunes1986 said:

I have received a Claim Form (N1SDT) dated 17th April 2024. I have completed an AoS using the MCOL site, which was submitted on 28/04/2024 and received 29/04/2024.

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th May 2024 to file your Defence.

That's well over two 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'.

Coupon-mad

Defence looks good.

You could add a quote from the incoming DLUHC Code of Practice where they say that avoiding 'keying error' PCNs is the burden of the operator and people should not be penalised for numberplate mistakes. 

Clunes1986

Defence submitted, fingers crossed! Thanks for your help.

nopcns

It could be said that it is well within the claimants power to have the app alert the user for an attempted payment for a vehicle registration that is not listed on their ANPR. Failing to use the available technology to apply that functionality is tantamount to entrapment.

Maybe worth mentioning in the defence?