PCN on Residential Parking and now LOC

Le_Kirk

Cancel_Them said:

Oops! I'll take both out then.

You just take out one of them.  Ask yourself "am I defending as RK and driver OR just RK", then adjust accordingly.  Remember if the judge asks you outright if you were driving, best not to lie!

LDast

If a judge asks you outright (doubtful), you can say that you decline to answer as is your legal right and it is the claimants burden to prove one way or the other. That is not "lying" to anyone.

So, you either throw away a perfectly good defence point by being a wuss and admitting to being the driver when there is absolutely not legal obligation to do so or you simply do not admit to being the driver and, in the highly unlikely event that a judge were to ask you directly whether you were the driver, you use (the Americanism "taking the fifth") the point that you are under no legal obligation to admit being the driver or no, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove otherwise.

Cancel_Them

Thanks @LDast and @Le_Kirk.

I'm happy to defend as just RK and plead the fifth if asked by the Judge, since it makes my defence stronger. 

I haven't searched the forum for recent WS to see the wording, but was wondering if I can still draft just as good a WS if I'm defending only as RK?

Coupon-mad

Cancel_Them said:

Yes, I never appealed any of these 3. Thanks

But there is a LOT of history to this case.  

You did appeal others around the same time and admitted to driving, as you told us:

"After about a month of parking I received 3 PCNs to my surprise, so I called the building mgt cy and was told the reg no. of the car needed to be added to the parking system before I could park. So I had this sent over and then proceeded to appeal the 3 as the Registered Keeper of the car and explained that I was using a friend's space and wasn't aware of the need to register."

I think it would be utter madness (given your significant engagement and conversations where you tried to resolve these PCNs and others, and having paid £220 out of an agreed payment plan totalling £420) to suddenly try to pretend you weren't the driver.

Or worse, to hide it or 'plead the fifth' (no such thing here of course).  Do not take that stance.  I've been in front of Judges. Believe me, they want to hear the truth.

So: drop Edward and Smith.

Forget defending as keeper.

Defend as a driver who was at all material times permitted to park by the bay owner (resident) but has already had £220 'extorted' (MP's word in 2018 - see Hansard records of the debates unanimously supporting the Parking Code of Practice Bill) and believed these 3 PCNs were either cancelled or paid.  And if the Claimant is able to prove not, liability for these further charges is denied. 

A solid defence point could be that you felt you were bullied into paying £220 which felt like blackmail to the effect: "we'll cancel 7 unfair PCNs if you pay the other 7 unfair PCNs at £60 a pop, even though we know you were authorised to park by the resident whose space it was".  You never admitted liability but were horribly intimidated and indeed as far as you were concerned you had paid these three.  The Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise and to prove their purported 'legitimate interest' in pursuing yet more money from a person authorised to use a resident's own space.

Remove this sentence:

"Furthermore, should the Claimant attempt to continue with the case on this basis, they may be at risk of a finding of Contempt of Court."

Cancel_Them

Alright, thanks 😊.  I had thought they could not rely on details from the appeals of the other 3 PCNs. 
I wasn't sure if/how to mention the £220 I had paid but this is brilliant.

I'll share an updated defence once done, probably only the parts that are changing. 

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

I just think you've described such detailed interaction in valiantly trying to resolve it (including appeals for other PCNs of the same facts) that they might easily make you look dishonest at a hearing if you start suddenly saying now: "prove I was driving".

Pick your best and honest arguments. In your case, arguing about keeper liability isn't it.

Cancel_Them

Coupon-mad said:

I just think you've described such detailed interaction in valiantly trying to resolve it (including appeals for other PCNs of the same facts) that they might easily make you look dishonest at a hearing if you start suddenly saying now: "prove I was driving".

Pick your best and honest arguments. In your case, arguing about keeper liability isn't it.

Thanks. I would like to be able argue the facts as freely as possible, especially if the Claimant can introduce details from the other appeals and interactions. I've taken out Edward and Smith, hopefully 13, 13.1 and 13.2 against the PoC can get it thrown out but there are lots of other good arguments in the defence.

Coupon-mad said:

Defend as a driver who was at all material times permitted to park by the bay owner (resident) but has already had £220 'extorted' (MP's word in 2018 - see Hansard records of the debates unanimously supporting the Parking Code of Practice Bill) and believed these 3 PCNs were either cancelled or paid.  And if the Claimant is able to prove not, liability for these further charges is denied. 

A solid defence point could be that you felt you were bullied into paying £220 which felt like blackmail to the effect: "we'll cancel 7 unfair PCNs if you pay the other 7 unfair PCNs at £60 a pop, even though we know you were authorised to park by the resident whose space it was".  You never admitted liability but were horribly intimidated and indeed as far as you were concerned you had paid these three.  The Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise and to prove their purported 'legitimate interest' in pursuing yet more money from a person authorised to use a resident's own space.

For the above, I have added these paragraphs:

10. At all relevant times, the Defendant had the permission of the bay owner, a resident, to park in the designated space. Despite this, the Defendant has already been subjected to payments totaling £220, which has been described as “extortion” in parliamentary discussions, specifically during debates surrounding the Parking Code of Practice Bill (Hansard, 2018). The Defendant believed that the three disputed PCNs were either cancelled or otherwise resolved through payment. If the Claimant asserts otherwise, any liability for further charges is denied.

10.1. The Defendant asserts that they felt bullied into the £220 payment, which felt like blackmail, with an ultimatum to the effect of, “We have 14 PCNs; we’ll cancel 7 if you pay the other 7 unfair PCNs at £60 each even though we know you were authorised to park by the resident whose space it was”. The Claimant subsequently increased this amount to £100 per PCN, attempting to extract additional funds from the Defendant. The Defendant never admitted liability for these charges and made the payment solely to avoid continued, relentless intimidation. The Defendant was under the impression that these three PCNs had been paid. Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary and is also required to establish their purported ‘legitimate interest’ justifying further pursuit of charges against an individual expressly authorised to use a resident’s designated parking space.

I also thought of and added an extra point in 11.3., let me know if that is fine as well:

11. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Pre-Authorised Vehicles & Permit Holders Only/Vehicles Displaying a Valid Permit’', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

11.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

11.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and operating a business as if the site were a public car park. They offer terms, including a £100 penalty, to residents similar to those available to the general public and trespassers. However, residents have inherent rights to park, rights of way, and peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Imposing new, onerous terms under a 'permit/licence' by a third party cannot be re-offered as a contract. This action interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, to which the parking firm is not a party and has not bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime may violate (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant’s land/property and their use or enjoyment of that land/property.

11.3. This is further substantiated by the experiences of fellow residents who have also been plagued by the same predatory behaviours from the Claimant. Residents continue to receive PCNs despite having designated parking spaces and established rights to use these areas—rights that predate any purported ‘legal interest’ by the Claimant. Some residents have felt pressured into paying these excessive amounts, often unaware of their rights—a deliberate strategy by the Claimant to issue PCNs to fee-paying residents and wait to see if they are knowledgeable enough to contest them. This is a lucrative and predatory gamble that the court should not allow to persist.




Thank you all for your help and guidance.

Coupon-mad

Yes very good.  

Cancel_Them

Thank you. I'll add the rest of the paragraphs, number accordingly and get it sent before the end of the week.

Cancel_Them

Hi,

I've just sent the Defence to CNBC and received the acknowledgement below:

Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days  When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B  https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b  Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size.

Will proceed with DQ forms (when I receive) and Witness Statement as outlined in the Newbies thread.

Many thanks