BW Legal / Premier Parking Solutions Ltd - Court Claim

Coupon-mad

OK so use the Template Defence and in para 3 deny being 'parked after expiry of time paid for' given the ambiguity of a sign with two different contractual tariff offers with hours of overlapping time, which is confusing and ambiguous. As such, the term must be interpreted in the way that best favours the consumer (per the Consumer Rights Act 2015).

KeithP

ManFromWaySouth said:

I signed into MCOL and registered defence 25 Feb

You seem to be saying that you have already filed a Defence. I hope that's not true.
Perhaps you are telling us that on 25th February you used MCOL to file an Acknowledgment of Service.
I'll assume the latter. Clarity is important and will become even more so now that you are entering the more formal court stages.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's nearly three 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

ManFromWaySouth

@KeithP Yes, its the latter. I have not filed defence yet and certainly intend to do it soon. Not wait.

"Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'." 

This is very valuable info! Although I'm following the second post in newbies thread carefully , i didnt realise this.

@Coupon-mad Thank you for your help. I will write it out and check back in before submitting anything.

Le_Kirk

Please just show us your paragraphs 2 & 3 (and any you add); we don't need to check the whole template!

ManFromWaySouth

Below is my defence. I guess perhaps I have said the same thing in both 3 and 4, and maybe 5 isnt necessary. 

I figured I don't need to mention 3 hungry children pulling at me while trying to decipher an overly complicated and deliberately misleading sign. Maybe I do??? I will let you guide me.....Thanks

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 admits to entering the car park at Hope Cove, Kingsbridge, TQ7 3HH in the registered vehicle but denies being 'parked after expiry of time paid for' given the ambiguity of a sign with two different contractual tariff offers with hours of overlapping time. This is confusing and ambiguous and as such, the term must be interpreted in the way that best favours the consumer (per the Consumer Rights Act 2015).

4. The sign on display at the time of the Defendants presence was filled with unreasonable amounts of information presented in many different font sizes and colours, and is inadequate and incapable of forming a contract. This mislead and deliberately confused the Defendant into believing they had purchased an adequate ticket. The Defendant purchased a ticket using cash as there was no mobile phone signal at the site. This ticket satisfied the terms ‘8am-8pm’ and the vehicle was not ‘parked overnight.’

5. As a gesture, the Defendant, upon receiving the first PCN, has already attempted to settle with the claimant the outstanding amount of £1.40 for the alleged ‘overstaying,’ however this has been denied.  

6. .........as per template

Coupon-mad

Remove para 5 & replace 'mislead' with the past tense 'misled'.

Le_Kirk

I wouldn't use 4 or 5 and keep that for the witness statement stage; I wouldn't mention that you were distracted by hungry children as the PPC will then say "aha, you didn't read the terms properly, it is your fault, money please!"

ManFromWaySouth

Thank for all the assistance. I'm going to submit defence this week. Will follow all the steps (ie print, sign, scan, email)

Can I just check: Shall I remove Para 4 and 5 and leave Para 3 as is??? Or is there reason to simplify and combine Para 4 into Para 3???

@Le_Kirk you suggest I can add more defence detail at the witness statement stage. Is this through 5 minutes on the phone or written?

Thanks

Johnersh

There is absolutely nothing to stop the defendant reproducing the full wording or layout of the sign within the defence.

If the case is that there was compliance or substantial compliance say that.

If the case is that the contract was void or voidable for uncertainty then say that

If consumer law is relied upon then say that.

I'd suggest that this may be clearer/more powerful without being dressed in the usual "boilerplate" wording. At its simplest:

1. Did the driver see the sign?
2. Did the driver pay and intend to pay
3. Would the man on the Clapham omnibus have interpreted the signage in the same way?

Of course each case is different, so one for the o/p to mull over.

Car1980

(Basic info of PCN: I read the signage as 8am-8pm AND overnight. We were not staying overnight, so paid for a ticket until 8pm. Left the car park at 8:50pm and have been issued the PCN for the overstay.

If this ever gets to a judge, the simple question of "how much does it cost to park between the hours of 8.01pm and 9.00pm Sir/Madam?" is probably all that's needed!

Because I have no idea.