Multiple PCNs and Claim Form for Atlip Centre Wembley gym member

shermanater

Yes, you're correct. Apologies - I mis-numbered the paragraphs. Thanks for spotting. Re-numbered they will read thus:

The facts known to the Defendant

4. 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.

5.  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.

6. 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.

7. 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

Change:

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.

to

After paying the first PCN (not based upon any admission of liability but wholly due to the intimidating nature of a letter dressing the unwarranted invoice up to look like a fine) the Defendant complained about this harassment to the gym and they confirmed that he was entitled to use the car park and was assured that the gym administration clerk would ensure his vehicle was registered to prevent future PCNs.

shermanater

Perfect, will make the change, PDF the file, sign (or rather, get my stepson to sign!) and then submit. Once again, thank you very much for your help and your work in this forum fighting the good fight - it really is appreciated. 

shermanater

We've finally had the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track through the post. My stepson's defence had quoted CEL vs Chan but I'm assuming that the judge did not think this sufficient argument to strike the case out.

My stepson tells me he ordinarily enters his registration number into a tablet at the gym on a daily basis.

Anyway, at the mediation he was told by Gladstone's (via the mediator) that he had not entered his details into the tablet on the particular day of the PCN - this is why he received the PCN.  

Now this may have changed my calculation as to whether it was worth fighting this, however, no mention was made of this in the POC within the claim form - or indeed on any of the other letters received. They just used the generic 'parked in breach of the terms...etc' text. My stepson assumed that he had put his details into the tablet like every other day. So on hearing at the mediation stage that this is the reason for the PCN my thoughts are twofold:

1. Does this strengthen the case for arguing that the POC were inadequate as they genuinely left us in the dark as to precisely what we had done wrong? 

2. Notwithstanding that, if my stepson's car registration is one that is regularly registered within the system then surely that establishes a 'pattern of life' of a car that regularly uses the car park and the gym within the Atlip Centre. If the aim of parking enforcement is to prevent cars parking in a car park that have no right to do so because they do not use the businesses at the Centre then surely a regular appearance on the registration list of a business followed by a day of not being registered is indicative to any logical person of a lapse on behalf of the car owner - can this be argued in court?

Coupon-mad

All of it can be argued and nothing has changed.

This was always an allegation that the (full/correct) VRM wasn't input. Them saying that to the Mediator was not a surprise.

But that could have been caused by the system dipping out of signal. Happens.

shermanater

Thanks for the reply - that's what I thought. I'll make sure to include the argument in the witness statement. Thanks again!