PCM / Moorside Legal are taking me to Small Claims Court

Gr1pr

If the time on site was less than 5 minutes as you state, then a grace period or consideration period may apply too, just a thought 

FluffySocks25

@Gr1pr, there is so much to add about this location and PCM, that I wish I could write. We got a ticket in the same location 5 months later after being told that we can park there as long as someone is sitting in the car. The attendant took a picture of the car by zooming in and just of the back car. When we appealed we said that someone was in the car and we were less than 5 minutes, there should be a grace period. They replied saying that the grace period only applies if you are reading the sign and not leaving the vehicle. On this appeal they were aware we was doing the school run as the took pictures of my husband and children (full face may I add and it is still on their site) entering the car. I read up grace periods as I know the council provide this. For private parking I believe it is called 'Consideration for parking'. If this is not true and I was tricked / misunderstood, I am happy to add this into my appeal

Grizebeck

Is it not an appeal.

FluffySocks25

@Grizebeck the one for this thread is not an appeal, I have received a claim form. I was just mentioning a previous ticket my husband received. When we appealed at first stage they said grace period is only for looking at the sign. My husband paid that ticket although we knew we could easily appeal and win.

Gr1pr

Either way, save the anecdotes, stories and facts etc for your Witness statement bundle next year 

My point was that you could add a very short sentence stating that the short stay was less than any grace period , a grace period that you believed to be permissable 

You can then expand on that aspect in your WS bundle in several months time 

FluffySocks25

Understood @Gr1pr. Thank you so much. I really appreciate everyone giving their time on this. I've updated, here is what I will be sending. I am likely to send this weekend, just so it is out out the way. 

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. The 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 short stay was less than any grace period, a grace period that the Defendant believed to be permissible.

6. 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 Defendants 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

Coupon-mad

You aren't using the right version for a Moorside Legal claim because they don't specify the breach in the POC.

Show us the POC.

Use the alternative version you seem to have missed (see the third paragraph notes in the Template Defence and the link given to the alternative paragraphs and Chan).

FluffySocks25

@Coupon-mad see attached 

FluffySocks25

@Coupon-mad - is this the wording I should use instead of what I put in paragraph 2

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

Coupon-mad

No.

Please use the link already provided by me in the third paragraph of the Template Defence.