Multiple PCNs and Claim Form for Atlip Centre Wembley gym member

shermanater

Good evening, 

I have a query about a Claim Form that my stepson has received from Gladstones / UK CPM relating to the Atlip Centre in Wembley. Sorry, a bit of a long message but a slightly complicated situation.

Situation is that he is a member of a martial arts gym in the Atlip Centre and has been for around 5 years now. During that time he has always parked in the car park as a visitor to the Atlip centre.

He has received a number of PCNs over the years plus the usual follow up letters threatening increased fines etc. I believe that for the first one, my partner (his mother) panicked and paid it in the early stages because she didn't realise he was allowed to park there. 

For the subsequent ones he took them to the gym management / admin who said they would sort it and make sure his car was registered. After this happened the letters stopped until invariably the cycle would happen again with another PCN, follow up letters etc. I wasn't aware of the situation until I saw one of the follow up letters - my stepson assured me the situation was under control, he was allowed to park there as the gym used that car park and that the gym always 'sorted it' and made the PCNs go away and the letters stop. Although he was at a loss to explain why they couldn't just register his car once and for all so he stopped receiving new PCNs, he did say that even the gym staff would complain about receiving PCNs that they 'needed to sort' from time to time. So I just assumed it was poor admin on the gym or the car park management's part and didn't pay much attention. 

However, we have just received a Claim Form for a day back in Aug 2023 when he parked there. I am unsure if this is because the gym did not bother to 'sort' the latest PCN or if this is an ominous sign that they didn't actually sort any of them.....although considering that he has received PCNs in years prior to Aug 2023 one could assume they did actually get previous PCNs revoked if only the August one has got to the Claim stage.

Question 1) On the basis that the Claim Form relates to Aug 23 can we presume that the gym did indeed get the PCNs received prior to that revoked or is it likely that the gym did not sort them and we are now about to get a number of inbound Claim Forms for days prior to Aug 23?!

Clearly, I want to contest this and have read through the various threads. I am looking to use the Template Defence and will state that he is a member of the gym and has the right to park there. We can prove that he has been using the gym for many years.

Question 2) Should I also mention the previous PCNs seemingly being revoked after speaking to the gym or is this likely to harm the Defence?

Sorry for the long message if you are still with me....thanks in advance for any help. And I must say thank you to all the regular contributors to these threads. I was about to accept that we would have to settle up until I read all the good knowledge contained. Thanks for all the work!

KeithP

Hello and welcome.
It is important to realise that anyone who believes they have a claim against someone else has up to six years following the event to start a court claim.

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all personal detail hidden of course.

Has an Acknowledgment of Service been filed?
If so, upon what date did that happen?
The MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Le_Kirk

shermanater said:

Clearly, I want to contest this and have read through the various threads. I am looking to use the Template Defence and will state that he is a member of the gym and has the right to park there. We can prove that he has been using the gym for many years.

Only the named person on the claim form can contest this and does so as "the defendant" rather than "I" or "he"

shermanater

Thanks very much for your quick replies. Yes, poor narrative on my part - understood that it will be my stepson contesting it - I'm just helping him out and will be drafting the Defence. I know he'll have to represent himself if it goes to court but I'll cross that bridge when it comes to it!

And understood that they have up to 6 years to put in the claim. This claim form is for the latest PCN he received - my assumption is that the gym did actually deal with the previous ones and if this assumption is correct, I would have thought that presenting this fact as evidence may back up the Defence. But if I'm incorrect, then it would suggest they have older PCNs waiting in the wings for a Claim Form to be sent one day!

But surely if I mention that there were no follow up letters to the previous PCNs because we were under the impression that the gym had sorted it it might help? Or perhaps not so no point mentioning since the core fact is that he had the right to park there?

Anyway, the issue date on the claim form is 08 Oct 24, AOS, filed on 20 Oct 24 and by my calculation I have until 10 Nov to file the Defence (08 Oct plus 5 days then add 28 days?)

Here's the redacted Claim Form:



Thanks again in advance!

KeithP

shermanater said:

Anyway, the issue date on the claim form is 08 Oct 24, AOS, filed on 20 Oct 24 and by my calculation I have until 10 Nov to file the Defence (08 Oct plus 5 days then add 28 days?)

Almost right, but never is any court deadline on a Sunday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, the Defendant has until 4pm on Monday 11th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's less than 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'.

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
So it is alleged that the driver 'parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract)'.
Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

1505grandad

" I know he'll have to represent himself if it goes to court but I'll cross that bridge when it comes to it!"

As long as he attends you can act as his Lay Representative.

shermanater

1505grandad said:

" I know he'll have to represent himself if it goes to court but I'll cross that bridge when it comes to it!"

As long as he attends you can act as his Lay Representative.

That's useful to know! 

Thanks very much for both of your replies and good to know that the POC is inadequate. 

I will get the defence written and sent this weekend. 

I've had a good read through the template defence and it seems to have quite a few arguments in it not directly related to my particular argument which I will fill in at Para 3 (which is that I had the right to park there). I think I have a semi decent understanding of each of the arguments but my question is whether I should include all of these arguments in the defence or is that overkill and may overcomplicate? i.e. Will I (or indeed my stepson) need to have a good working understanding of the background behind each argument -  ParkingEye v Beavis being distinguished, CRA breaches  - will the judge bring these up to 'probe' his understanding of them? Or are they 'standing defences' that are generally well understood? Essentially, will the argument of 'I had the right to park there so shouldn't have to pay' be enough on its own?

Sorry if this is a rather noddy set of questions but this will be my/my stepson's first brush with a court appearance. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you need it all.

He doesn't need to be able to explain Beavis or the CRA 2015, however ... the template defence makes it fairly easy to understand, surely?

It spells out how Beavis is distinguished and cites the right clauses of the CRA 2015 so it's merely a case of Googling it and reading the relevant bits to understand it.  That's all I did in 2015 and I'm not legally qualified but I fully understand both. They (Beavis and the CRA) are both on point for any parking case.  Don't drop such important stuff!

Your stepson's facts paragraph is obviously going to go in as para 5 of the linked alternative defence for claims where the breach isn't pleaded.

Why not just spend a few days reading other Gladstones defences from 2024?  They are all the same and can be pretty much copied.

 

shermanater

All copied - yes, makes sense once you give it a good read. Just drafting the Defence now. Thanks again. 

shermanater

Good evening,

Thank you all very much for all the advice so far. I've drafted the paragraphs relating to my stepson's particular case. I would be very grateful if I could get some feedback from the experienced hands on the forum. 

My main question is whether paras 7 and 8 are necessary or perhaps liable to make the case harder to argue?

I've redacted the name of the gym, even though it's probably easy to work out, just to keep their name out of it since I don't think it's directly related to the case.

The facts known to the Defendant

5. 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.

6.  It is admitted that on 07/08/2023 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at The Atlip Centre Wembley car park because the Defendant is a member of [redacted] gym, The Atlip Centre, Atlip Road, Wembley. As a licensed business within the Atlip Centre [redacted] gym customers and members have the right to park in the adjacent car park. Indeed, at the entrance to the car park a sign stipulates ‘Atlip Centre Visitors Only’.  As a member of the gym the Defendant has the right to park in the adjacent car park. The Defendant can provide proof of this membership.

7. The Defendant has been a member of [redacted] gym for over 5 years and as such has parked his vehicle at the Atlip Centre car park on multiple occasions over the last 4 years. Several PCNs have arrived in the post over this period. The Defendant vaguely recalls that the first of these was paid due to a lack of knowledge of his rights regarding the use of the car park whilst using the gym. After paying the PCN and enquiring within the gym the Defendant was made aware of the fact that he was entitled to use the car park and was told that the gym administration clerk would ensure his vehicle was registered to prevent future PCNs.

8. Several more PCNs were received with follow up letters. On each occasion, the Defendant took these letters to the gym administration where he was assured that the PCN would be revoked once his vehicle was re-registered. The Defendant attributed the repetitive nature of the PCNs to poor process on the part of the gym or the car park management company but each time the issue was raised with the gym the follow up/reminder letters would cease and the Defendant had an honest belief that the matter was resolved.

Coupon-mad

I'm confused. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the facts paragraph is 5 when you click on the link in the Template Defence third paragraph?