Court Claim Defence Help

FraggleRoxy

Hello all, 

I’ve received and acknowledged a Court Claim. I have taken note of the suggested paragraphs of a defence, but I’d like some help with the rest of my defence. 

Hopefully the redacted Particulars of Claim, and Sign examples are attached below 🤞🏼 and here are further points that may be relevant/helpful for my defence. 

1) I’m the Keeper, but was not the driver. 

2) The PCN arrived 16 days after the alleged overstay. 

3) I’m disabled, was parked in a disabled bay, and displayed my blue badge. 

4) I shopped in stores that are/were part of the retail park. I have credit card statements to back up. 

4) The alleged overstay was not far outside of the 10 minute grace period given to everyone. It takes me longer to shop than an abled bodied person, so I’m at a time disadvantage. Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments to avoid disadvantage to be made. 

5) Having cognitive issues means that understanding and responding to the PCN, IAS and now this, is very difficult and extremely time consuming. It has caused great anxiety, depression and physical pain, which has all impacted my life greatly. I feel persecuted for being disabled, they have no right to do that.

6) The threatening language of the many notices I received added to the stresses mentioned in point 5). 

Oh, and do ‘DRA costs’ mean the Debt Recovery costs? If so, they added £70 for this. 

I hope all this makes sense, and someone will be kind enough to help me. 

Many thanks 🙏 

hxxps://ibb.co/kS32tNX

hxxps://ibb.co/VggqfN5

hxxps://ibb.co/6tSvf53

Coupon-mad

I’m disabled, was parked in a disabled bay, and displayed my blue badge. 

Welcome!  So you were the passenger?

https://ibb.co/kS32tNX

https://ibb.co/VggqfN5

https://ibb.co/6tSvf53

Is this claim filed by Elms Legal for VCS?

FraggleRoxy

Coupon-mad said:

I’m disabled, was parked in a disabled bay, and displayed my blue badge. 

Welcome!  So you were the passenger?

Is this claim filed by Elms Legal for VCS?

Yes, I was the passenger, and yes it’s Elms Legal for VCS.

The driver is also disabled, but I’m the keeper and it was my badge on display. 

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

FraggleRoxy

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?

The issue date is 02/05/24
I filed the AoS on 10/05/24

KeithP

FraggleRoxy said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?

The issue date is 02/05/24
I filed the AoS on 10/05/24

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 4th June 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

FraggleRoxy

Hi everyone, 

I’ve taken note of the defence advice on here, and have the standard paragraphs ready to go. However I’d like your feedback on the “Explain in your own words…” part.

I suspect it’s too long. I have taken into account VCS’s IAS responses, countering their responses, which I might not have needed to do. 
I have not yet numbered my paragraphs, but I know that needs to happen. 

==================

The defendant is disabled and needed someone with them who was able to drive their Motability car. The driver who was helping the defendant on 16/08/2023 is also disabled. The vehicle parked in a disabled bay, and displayed the defendant’s blue badge. The claimant demands that a blue badge is displayed when parking in a designated disabled bay. It is confusing that the claimant demand the display of a blue badge, yet do do recognise the three hours parking time that a blue badge usually allows. 

On arrival, the defendant and driver had to unload both an electric wheelchair and a mobility scooter from the vehicle in order to do their shopping - which is difficult as they both have mobility issues. Though it is not as difficult as getting the mobility equipment back into the vehicle, especially as only the electric wheelchair is compatible with the hoist fitted in the vehicle. 

This all takes time, as does recovering from handling the mobility equipment. Add to that the extra time it takes to get around shops - especially those with narrow isles and/or merchandising in the isles - and it is little wonder that it takes the defendant a long time to do their shopping. 

The maximum time period specified by the claimant puts disabled people, such as the defendant, at a disadvantage when compared to able-bodied people, as they need a longer time period to accomplish the same tasks. 

The Equality Act 2010 says that where a provision, criterion or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, reasonable adjustments should be taken to avoid the disadvantage. 

In this instance, the defendant feels that it is reasonable to allow disabled individuals more time to complete their shopping, and imposing harsh charges on disabled individuals because they couldn't do their shopping as fast as able-bodied individuals is discriminatory. The claimant is a member of the IPC. The IPC code of conduct states that operators have a duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments' to assist disabled people. 

The defendant also noted that the initial PCN letter arrived 16 days after the event in question. The IPC code of conduct requires charge notifications to be received within 14 days. The defendant received the PCN letter on 1st September 2023.

Given that the car park is free to park for two hours, the defendant feels that the PCN charge amount is substantially higher than the likely losses incurred by the claimant during an overstay of 16 minutes, and amounts to Unfair Terms as of the Consumer Contract Regulations (1999).

Both the claimant, and the claimant’s legal representative used threatening language in both the initial PCN and the subsequent letters received from them. They threaten ‘debt recovery action', inflated costs and ‘debt recovery and/or court action'. The threat of debt recovery is overly aggressive and alarmist, given that debt recovery is not permitted without first obtaining a court ruling. The defendant has both physical and cognitive impairments including chronic fatigue, which affects their memory and concentration. Coping with everyday tasks can be overwhelming, so this claim has been alarming and stressful. It has negatively impacted both their physical and mental health. 

Where a disabled person can park is not always a choice. In order to access the same freedoms as a non-disabled person, they have to consider many factors. They can't always just park a bit further away. Even when you factor in Blue Badge on-street parking, they can only do that if there are spaces available, if the space is big enough to use the hoist at the rear of the vehicle, and safe enough to exit the vehicle. Parking in the only close-by car park with disabled bays isn't always a choice, it's often an only option. If the defendant knew in advance that, on that day, they could not complete our shopping, and leave the car park, in under two hours, they could have turned around and left the car park - in which case the car park regulations would still have been a barrier to them accessing the shopping area like a non-disabled person could. 

==================

Any feedback would be much appreciated, thank you. 

Coupon-mad

I have taken into account VCS’s IAS response

Firstly, please do this (official paid research):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6528490/official-dluhc-paid-research-have-you-ever-appealed-a-parking-charge-notice/p1

The researchers need to talk to people who tried POPLA or the IAS as they want to talk about what the new Government appeals portal & service should look like.

If you are available and interested in taking part in paid research, please complete the short questionnaire below. If you are suitable, People for Research will be in touch with you in the next few days to confirm your session. The session will involve a video call with a researcher.

Date of sessions: Monday 20th May to Wednesday 5th June 

Type of research session: 1-2-1 online discussion

Incentive: £60 bank transfer/voucher

We are interested in speaking to anyone who has received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking operator, more specifically this can be anyone: 

• Who was driving at the time of the parking incident in dispute 
• The registered keeper of the car who received the PCN but was not present at the time the car was parked
• Anyone who was successful in their appeal
• Anyone who was unsuccessful in their appeal

To ensure we have a diverse group of users to speak to, the team are particularly interested in speaking to people from the following:

• A mix of genders
• English as a second language
• Low digital literacy
• A range of accessibility needs (e.g. neurodiversity, visual impairments etc), ages, socio economic backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, locations where people live (in England, Scotland and Wales)

The initial part of the survey to respond and confirm your interest is here:

 https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ParkingChargeNoticeSurvey/

Please read Zaizi's privacy notice here.

Please read People for Research's privacy notice here.

FraggleRoxy

Coupon-mad said:

I have taken into account VCS’s IAS response

Firstly, please do this (official paid research):

Initial questionnaire done ✔️ 

Gr1pr

Definitely too long, save it for the witness statement later on 

Just write a few short sentences, a precis of the key point's, so that your long statement above can be used at the WS stage in several months time 

With defence statements, they should not be war and peace, but should be concise, people tend to want to explain everything at the beginning, save the explanations for later in the process 

LDast

In your defence, you only need answer the cause of action in the PoC on the claim form. Do not give the Claimant any ammunition that they may either use against you or twist for their own advantage in their WS later on.

Something along these lines:

 The Defendant and the other occupant of the vehicle both have mobility issues that are protected characteristics under the Equality Act and were at the location as patrons of the local businesses. The Defendant is being penalised because of their disability and the Claimant has no cause of action. The claim is vexatious and the Claimant has knowingly discriminated against the Defendant and the other occupant of the vehicle.

Keep it simple at this stage.

Whilst there is a woefully inadequate cause of action stated in the PoC, I would suggest you add the following as a Preliminary Matter after para #1 and then the "Facts as known to the defendant" paras after that.

Para #1 here

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

Para #3 here

4. The Defendant and the other occupant of the vehicle both have mobility issues that are protected characteristics under the Equality Act and were at the location as patrons of the local businesses. The Defendant is being penalised because of their disability and the Claimant has no cause of action. The claim is vexatious and the Claimant has knowingly discriminated against the Defendant and the other occupant of the vehicle.

Para #5 and the rest of the template defence...