Parking Charge, assumed to be the driver - Claim form received......

ChillyDragon51

Good afternoon,
I wonder if anyone can throw some light on this please?
I responded online to a parking notice explaining the driver had parked with a good distance between them and the next vehicle to enable a safe exit from the vehicle, as a result of a spinal operation in the previous weeks.  The driver was visiting Boots to collect pain medication. The driver inadvertently parked too far over meaning two wheels sat on the hatched markings of the next space. The driver information has never been requested - the appeal was rejected (no surprise there) and this was followed by a claim form from the Civil National Business Centre.
I have submitted an AoS and am now completing a defence.   In the PoC they refer to me as the Defendant, and then later as the driver, and later as the keeper.  I realize they can pursue the keeper if the driver details have not been obtained, but can they call me the driver if they never asked or were never given that information?
Essentially I suppose my question is, is that a technicality, since they are assuming I was the driver?

Coupon-mad

Please show us the POC.

What is the 'Issue Date' top tight?

Gr1pr

They will assume it, UNLESS categorically denied 

More importantly, you need to defend yourself 

Issue date on the claim form is. ? ( Top right. )

Date AOS completed on MCOL is. ?

Name of parking company is. ?

Name of the lawyers acting on behalf of the parking company is. ?

And post a redacted picture of the POC on the left of the form, hiding the VRM details 

ChillyDragon51

Hi Both, many thanks for your responses.

The issue date is 13 August 2024
AOS completed 19 August 2024
Parking Co: UK Parking Control Ltd
DCB Legal acting for them

Picture to be uploaded of POC next.

ChillyDragon51

Sorry - Am I having trouble uploading a photo because I am a newbie?

ChillyDragon51

Perhaps I will have to type it out manually?

KeithP

ChillyDragon51 said:

The issue date is 13 August 2024
AOS completed 19 August 2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th September 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over two 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'.

ChillyDragon51

1. The defendant (D) is indebted to the claimant (C) for a parking charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 9/1/24.
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space.
4. in the alternative the defendant is pursued as th keeper pursuant to POFA2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 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 Court Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

ChillyDragon51

Would anyone be happy to tell me what they think of this defence please?

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 and driver.

3. The defendant was collecting pain relief medication from Boots Pharmacy.  The defendant was a number of weeks post-op following an ALIF procedure to the spine. The vehicle was parked leaving enough space between cars to allow for full opening of the door to enable safe maneuverability. The defendant did not intend to park outside marked lines and caused no obstruction or danger to other car park users. Photographs show at least 4 spaces around, parallel and adjacent to the vehicle in question, and thus no other drivers were denied parking.

4. The claim states that the vehicle was parked “NOT PARKED CORRECTLY WITHIN THE MARKINGS OF THE BAY OR SPACE”. 

In Parking Eye v Beavis 4th November 2015 UKSC 2015/0116, in paragraph 310 Lord Toulson states “There may be reasons why a user parks with his wheels outside the marked bay (for example because of the way the adjacent vehicle is parked or because he is a wheelchair user and none of the blue bays are available). Examples could be multiplied. The point is that the penalty clause makes no allowance for circumstances, allows no period of grace and provides no room for adjustment”.

Coupon-mad

That's very good.  The only criticism from me is the American spelling of maneuverability which in the UK is manoeuvrability.

ChillyDragon51

Rats! -  I caught the "defense" spelling but missed that! Thank you for pointing it out, and thank you for your feedback.