PCM / Moorside Legal are taking me to Small Claims Court

FluffySocks25

Hi Everyone. I have been dealing with this issue for almost two years and I really wish I saw this forum ages ago, it would have helped. You've helped a lot of people and I am hoping I can be one of them too.

• Parking Charge Notice received early 2023.
• Issue date on the claim form is 21st October 2024, 
• I did an AOS on the 29th October 2024.

I have had a look at the newbies thread and the sticky, I have also gone through a number of other threads hoping to find something similar, I have got a lot of advice on what to do, but I think I may need additional help hence why I am starting my own thread.

Main points 

• I got a PCM from doing the school run, although we have been allowed to park there for 2 years prior. I had left the car and returned within 3/4 minutes. Different attendant than the usual one.
• First letter I received was debt collection, potential royal mail strike could have caused for me not receiving the letters
• The pictures of my car are taken within a few seconds of each other and then the picture of the notice is taken some time later, clearly not taken at the same time.
• PCM /Moorside have not accepted what I have said and have now taken me to court
• Upon preparing my defence for court, I went back online to look at the pictures and I realised that not only did the attendant take pictures of my car in haste. They had run off and took pictures of different notice from another part of the area. I know this because the notice is on a wall with a light on top and there is no wall near where the car was parked. Furthermore, the wording / T&C is completely different. The one they have attached to my PCN says ‘No parking Wholly or Partially’, however where I was parked permits parking, just different rules which I've seen after the matter.
• I wrote my defence, it is 4 pages long and gathered evidence including signatures but based on the forum, I shouldn’t send evidence at this stage. On my defence I have put legal grounds such as ‘Promissory Estoppel’ and ‘Misrepresentation’ etc amongst others for why the case should be dismissed.
• Based on the template, the firm have not completed a sufficient POC, I could add that to my defence but as I have had previous letters and I have a number of communications with them, I cannot deny that I do not know what they a referring to nor, furthermore, they are saying I breached T&C of parking ‘wholly’ in a place where I was not allowed which is not the T&C of the bay I was in. Its almost like they have exaggerated the breach.
• Any advice on how to approach this would be great. I have added additional context, should anyone wish to read on. Images of the sign has the location on it, which I can upload if need be
• Just separately, I also think they have breached GDPR by asking me to send medical information for my case that they did not need. I would like to write to them to let them know this, what do you think?

Additional Context
It is a new area, there is nowhere to park and we (parent) have been given permission to park there by the parking attendant for PCM, I had done so for 2 years prior with no issue. There is another parking provider on the land and I have no issues with them and they still allow parents to park, they even patrol the area during these times. I am mindful of stating the location as it will make me easily identifiable if agencies use these sites too, but if I need to I am happy to do so. No one else has mentioned this location on the forum. 

Debt collection sent one letter, I called and said I had not received the letter, they told me they would put my case on hold. I did not receive any further letters. It then got sent to Shakespeare Martineau, a legal firm, I made my case and also provided medical information. They dropped the case, referred back to PCM who have now passed me on to Moorside. I called Moorside (on private so they do not have my number) explained the situation, they asked for my medical information so they can confirm what I am saying is true. I was unwell at the time, so I only sent my medical information, plus the previous letters I had sent to the other law firm and my state my case when I had received the Pre Court letter from them.

They wrote back to me dismissing what I had said, not acknowledging any medical information or why they needed it and they asked for payment within 7 days. Payment was not made, and they have now sent a claim form.

Just to add, the PCM attendant tried to issue another ticket a few days later but did not realise someone was sitting in the car. When they approached the car and saw someone, they said you can park there as long as someone is sitting there. 5 months later I received another ticket from the same bay, picture was taken by zooming in only of the back of the car. I was sitting in the car at the time. As we already had this ticket to deal with, we paid it although we knew we could win this in court.

They are actually no good, and should be shut down!

Gr1pr

If you haven't submitted your defence yet, stop

Adapt the template defence by coupon mad in announcements instead 

No stories, no evidence, no long war and peace stuff

Adapt paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit, keep them short and to the point, addressing the POC details etc

Post your adapted defence below, but only your work, not the rest of the unchanged template, we don't want to see that 

Your defence deadline is 4pm on Monday 25th of November 

Coupon-mad

Are you sure it's PCM?  They use Gladstones.

FluffySocks25

Note sure how to reply to you @Coupon-mad directly. But is definitely PCM. Gladestones I think were debt collection agency, cannot remember. The legal firms were Shakespeare Martineau and Moorside Legal.
 
Thank you @Gr1pr, I will have a look at the template by @Coupon-mad and adjust.

Grizebeck

Yes PCM are using moorside as well

FluffySocks25

Please find below wording for defence.

• For point 2, I have added my words in bold.
• For point 3 is all my words, explaining why I was there and my defence - If I have added too much please let me know and I can reduce.

Parking Control Management UK

(Claimant)

 

- and –

NAME

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

1.     The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')

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. Previous correspondence has also been received and the Defendant is aware of the T&Cs the Claimant claims the Defendant has breached.

3.     The Defendant formally contests and deny the allegation and the parking charge notice issued by the Claimant on the grounds that the evidence provided is inaccurate, misleading and does not accurately reflect the circumstances at the time. The Claimant have also incorrectly asserted in the POC that the Defendant agreed to pay the charges with 28 days. This is false as the Defendant has consistently contested this notice and charge as soon as they knew this notice existed. The Defendants main purpose is clarity and fairness which they believe Claimant has not done.

The Defendant parked in this bay by (LOCATION) for school runs without issue for two years prior, following verbal permission from an attendant who represents the Claimant as an employee. Attendant would patrol the area to ensure the 20-minute grace did not lapse. Without notice, the parking rules changed, and the Defendant was issued this invoice by a different attendant representing the firm. The Defendant had parked for 4 minutes or less. Despite request for an audit, so the Defendant could demonstrate that no tickets have been issued in this bay between the school run times for the last two years to further verify the Defendants claim, the Claimant has not conducted one. 

FluffySocks25

@Gr1pr I have just had a look at @bargepole12 steps again and it says I should detail every point of fact and law that I intend to rely on. I have updated point 3 of my letter adding additional legal standing.

3. The Defendant formally contests and deny the allegation and the parking charge notice issued by the Claimant on the grounds that the evidence provided is inaccurate, misleading and does not accurately reflect the circumstances at the time. The Claimant have also incorrectly asserted in the POC that the Defendant agreed to pay the charges with 28 days. This is false as the Defendant has consistently contested this notice and charge as soon as they knew this notice existed. The Defendants main purpose is clarity and fairness which they believe Claimant has not done.

The Defendant parked in this bay by (LOCATION) for school runs without issue for two years prior, following verbal permission from an attendant who represents the Claimant as an employee. Attendant would patrol the area to ensure the 20-minute grace did not lapse. Without notice, the parking rules changed, and the Defendant was issued this invoice by a different attendant representing the firm. Potential Legal Standing – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

The Defendant had parked for 4 minutes or less.  The photograph of my vehicle was taken on  DATE AND TIME, while the photograph of the parking sign was taken at TIME minutes later. The sign shown in the photograph is not located where the defendant vehicle was parked nor are the T&Cs the same - Potential Legal Standing – Misrepresentation (Misrepresentation Act 1967) and Data Protection and Evidentiary Standards.

KeithP

Every paragraph needs a number. Your latest iteration has two unnumbered paragraphs.

In your second unnumbered paragraph you've slipped into first person mode where you write "The photograph of my vehicle...".

In paragraph 3 you deny that "that the Defendant agreed to pay the charges with 28 days".
Is there not a term on the signs that says something like "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days..."?

1505grandad

Make sure the claimant's name is as stated on the claim form.

Gr1pr

I would suggest that you delete the following 

2.  Previous correspondence has also been received and the Defendant is aware of the T&Cs the Claimant claims the Defendant has breached.

3.  The Claimant have also incorrectly asserted in the POC that the Defendant agreed to pay the charges with 28 days. This is false as the Defendant has consistently contested this notice and charge as soon as they knew this notice existed. The Defendants main purpose is clarity and fairness which they believe Claimant has not done.

FluffySocks25

Amended - Thank you.
@KeithP paragraphs numbered, first person removed now referred to as Defendant
@Gr1pr lines removed
@1505grandad full name of claimant used (I missed the word LIMITED)

Question - what do you think of the legal standing I have used? 

Parking Control Management UK Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

NAME

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

__________________

1.     The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')

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 formally contests and deny the allegation and the parking charge notice issued by the Claimant on the grounds that the evidence provided is inaccurate, misleading and does not accurately reflect the circumstances at the time.

4. The Defendant parked in this bay by (LOCATION) for school runs without issue for two years prior, following verbal permission from an attendant who represents the Claimant as an employee. Attendant would patrol the area to ensure the 20-minute grace did not lapse. Without notice to parents or the school, the parking rules changed, and the Defendant was issued an invoice by a different attendant representing the firm. Potential Legal Standing – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

5. The Defendant had parked for 4 minutes or less.  The photograph of the Defendants vehicle was taken on DATE AND TIME, while the photograph of the parking sign was taken at TIME / NUMBER minutes later. The sign shown in the photograph is not located where the Defendant vehicle was parked nor are the T&Cs the same for that bay -Potential Legal Standing – Misrepresentation (Misrepresentation Act 1967) and Data Protection and Evidentiary Standards.

REST OF THE TEMPLATE ADDED HERE