PCN as a visitor of a private car park

zeusxav

Hi!

The other party didn't respond to the directions questionnaire within the initial time frame.  Today I received an email for mediation.  I called and was told the email was an error and that it would be cancelled.  However MCOL told me the claimant had filled in the directions questionnaire after the reminder - but has failed to send me a copy.  Is that relevant?

zeusxav

Hello all!
I've just had confirmation that the other party has paid their court fee so I'm due in court on 13 November.  Now my bottle has actually gone.  I've never been to court before.  
I've got a witness statement and photographs.  But I have to write my own statement?  

DE_612183

Just follow the instructions in the newbees thread - it's not like crown court you see on the telly - just like ajob interview really - don't worry!

zeusxav

Thank you.  

KeithP

zeusxav said:

I've just had confirmation that the other party has paid their court fee so I'm due in court on 13 November.  Now my bottle has actually gone.  I've never been to court before.   

Have you seen this video?...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU
Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

zeusxav

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 30/09/2023. However, they state parking was in breach of the advertised terms and conditions: namely Parked in a restricted//prohibited area.  As per the attached photographic evidence the claimant does not have any advertised terms and conditions at the location on entrance, nor in prominent locations.

2.1.  Given that there were no terms and conditions displayed the defendant refutes the claimants allegation that a contract has been entered into with Vehicle Control Services.

2.2. The defendant would like to rely on Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] whereby it was found that there was no entrance signage to the residential site and the other signage was not visible.  The claim in that case was dismissed.

2.3. The allocated parking space, by the evidence supplied is not clearly marked or identified as a “restricted or prohibited area”.

2.4. I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2.4) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. 

3. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the concierge staff. The lack of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms not conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid contract with the claimant.

10. The Claimant has added additional sums to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £255.00, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

(Defendant)

17 October 2024

zeusxav

So that's how far I've got.  I don't actually understand some of it but....

zeusxav

KeithP said:

zeusxav said:

I've just had confirmation that the other party has paid their court fee so I'm due in court on 13 November.  Now my bottle has actually gone.  I've never been to court before.   

Have you seen this video?...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU
Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

I've just watched that - thank you

Gr1pr

That appears to be a defence, which it says at the top and at the bottom , but your actual defence is back on page one   ( it has an out of date statement of truth too, not been used since 2020. !  )

You should be studying and drafting your WITNESS STATEMENT, which it will state more than once 

zeusxav

Sorry .... with the evidence, which I will number ... do I add all the letters VCS sent to me?  Including the ones marked without prejudice?