Parking - Defence

floatz1234

Hi All,

I hope you're well.

I'm hoping you can help me draft a defence for a claim I received a few weeks ago from a dodgy parking firm.  I'm trying to follow the template on the site, however I was hoping you could advise if my draft is sufficient before adding the rest of the template?

.......However, the vehicle is recognised as a company vehicle with

multiple drivers.

 

3. The vehicle was parked in the company car park, displaying a

valid parking permit and it is unclear from the POC what terms

were breached.

 

4. It is denied the defendant agreed to pay any money to the

claimant
===========================================================================

Any help or advice is much appreciated.

Thanks

Floatz1234

Gr1pr

Lose 4 , the terms and conditions on the signs contracted with the driver, including paying any money 

You need to adapt paragraphs 2 & 3

Name the parking company plus any lawyers involved 

What is the issue date on the claim form. ?

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the bottom left of the claim form, after hiding the VRM details first 

Coupon-mad

Is the claim addressed to a company?

Show us the POC, with the usual 4 things redacted (as seen on all the other threads).

floatz1234

Thanks for above comments and apologies in the delay.

Claim was issued to myself and Issue date on the claim was 15th of October. The alleged parking offence was august 2022, the vehicle was a company vehicle with multiple drivers.  I assume the claim has been sent to me as I'm one of a company directors.  I think I may (but can't be sure) have signed for delivery which is why they are targeting me.  The vehicle was also displaying a permit but I remember a ticket was issued to a vehicle where the permit was slightly sun worn but still readable (if you tried).  I'm pretty sure this is the PCN relating to that.  I don't have POC with me today but have revised the defence to this....if you do have some time do advise it will be much appreciated.  I wasn't too sure how much to edit paragraph 2.

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 not the defendants vehicle and is 

recognised as a company vehicle with multiple drivers.

3. The claim is over 2 yeas old and as the vehicle had multiple 

drivers it cannot be confirmed who was driving the vehicle and as 

such the claim should be issued to the defendants employer not the 

defendant.

4. All company vehicles display a valid parking permit so a PCN 

should not have been issued and the POC is unclear to what terms 

have been breached.

Coupon-mad

Just to be clear: is the Defendant named as you, as an individual?

But you've never appealed and admitted to driving?

And on the V5C your name doesn't appear?

floatz1234

Parking Control Management & Moorside Legal

floatz1234

yes I'm named as the defendant but not sure why.  Car was a company car but it was a replacement vehicle whilst usual company vehicle was in the shop.  I think I signed the delivery when the guy turned up but I never saw the V5C

floatz1234

Never appealed, to be honest I just normally throw these away as I just assumed a mistake

Gr1pr

Looks like the registered keeper, the hire company named you as hirer from the hire agreement you signed, hence why they issued a court claim against you due to no replies or appeals to the letters they sent.  The bin was never the place for those letters. Ignoring them leads to a court claim 

Looks like Moorside have got a contract from. PCM UK LTD. ? ( So not Gladstone's. )

Your draft defence has spelling mistakes etc

Coupon-mad

Ah so effectively a temporary courtesy vehicle?  That explains it. Whoever owns that vehicle got the first PCN in the post then named you as the hirer.

So you'll have to amend some odd words at the start of the Template Defence because you aren't the keeper. Would it be 100% true to say:

The Defendant denies being the registered keeper and also denies being the driver.  Further, it is the defence case that this Claimant is pursuing the wrong person, seemingly because the vehicle owners probably named the Defendant as the person who first signed for the van when it arrived at COMPANY NAME as a temporary courtesy vehicle while our usual van was off the road.  That doesn't make the Defendant personally liable. At best, PCM might have been able to argue that the Defendant was the hirer (albeit, in fact COMPANY NAME was) but 'hirer liability' is only legally possible where an operator fully complied with paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4. They did not.  

floatz1234

Yes it was a temp courtesy vehicle and yes I believe that is an accurate reflection