PCN Claim Form defence question

Bill_Bowman

Hello! 

On receiving a charge for £100 for parking in a MET controlled car park, I decided to refute it as a) outrageous and b) unfair as it wasn't clear I had to put my registration into a terminal inside the building after arrival. 

So I followed all the templates and rules and I'm not at the stage where I've received a Claim Form fron DCB Legal and responded saying I will contest all. 

Unfortunately, I feel that my defence might be an irrelevant defence so I was hoping for some points of view - The "you should have thought about the defence first" point of view is the one I currently have. 

Here is my experience: 

1. I used the car park at the leisure centre quite a lot. I was aware of the signage which says in large letters that it's a 3 hours maximum stay. I always felt that was reasonable as the kids lessons were only 1 hour. 
2. I always had to go to reception to be signed in and I was never asked or told to put my registration into a small kiosk after I go through the barriers.
3. The first I knew about this was a responsibility was when I received the charge. 
4. Going back to the sign, it does say people must enter their vehicle registration on arrival

I now have a Claim for for £275 (190 claimed, 35 court fee, 50 legal representatives costs) and worry that I'm about to use an irrelevant defence. 

My two questions are: 

1. Is my experience an irrelevant defence? 
2. Can I contest that £100 is too much and get it reduced?

Thanks so much! 

Gr1pr

1) I wouldn't dissect it too much, just adapt the template defence by coupon mad and they will probably discontinue next year 

Now that you are getting assistance from here, you won't be using an irrelevant defence 

2) no , definitely not, its been £100 or less for over a decade, plus the Supreme court approved £85 in the Beavis case 9 years ago 

What is the issue date on your claim form. ?

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

Bill_Bowman

Thanks Gr1pr! 

Data of issue on claim form is 15 Nov '24

Gr1pr

Ok, login to MCOL and do the AOS online, as described in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

Then start following the first couple of posts in the defence template thread in announcements 

Draft your paragraphs 2 & 3 proposals below for further advice, don't post the rest of the unchanged template, only your homework is being checked, to ensure that its not irrelevant or incorrect 

Bill_Bowman

Will do, thank you! 

KeithP

Bill_Bowman said:

Data of issue on claim form is 15 Nov '24

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th November, you have until Wednesday 4th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

As @Gr1pr says, to file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Bill_Bowman

Thanks again for your support here. 

Here is my para 2&3: 

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 was a frequent user of the leisure centre, taking their children to swimming. On entering the car park, the defendant saw the signage to state that there was a 3 hours maximum stay with no details regarding registration of car details. On all occasions prior to the parking charge, the defendant picked up swimming wrist bands from the desk and was never asked to enter their car details into the parking kiosk which was located after the barriers. The defendant was extremely surprised to receive a parking charge after being in the carpark for less than three hours. It was at this point the defendant looked closely at a sign within the car park with additional information and read the smaller print that the registration of the vehicle needed to be registered.

Thanks so much! 

Coupon-mad

Change this:

On all occasions prior to the parking charge, the defendant picked up swimming wrist bands from the desk and was never asked to enter their car details into the parking kiosk which was located after the barriers. The defendant was extremely surprised to receive a parking charge after being in the carpark for less than three hours. It was at this point the defendant looked closely at a sign within the car park with additional information and read the smaller print that the registration of the vehicle needed to be registered.

to this:

On all occasions prior to the parking charge, the defendant picked up swimming wrist bands from the desk and was never asked to enter their car details anywhere. Unbeknown to the Defendant, a poorly advertised ANPR 'exempt your car' regime had been suddenly introduced.  The staff at reception failed to mention it and no signs were seen that were capable of binding the Defendant to this new and unexpected 'contract'. Because the Defendant didn't see it and the term was not prominent, nor 'bound to be seen' the Defendant knew nothing about the £100 risk and is not bound by it.

Bill_Bowman

Thank you so much @Coupon-mad!

On the topic of "had been suddenly introduced" - I'm not clear when it was introduced only that the difference between the entrance signs and the in-parking signs (that I didn't read up close because I read the entrance signs).

Here are the two signs:



Should I continue with your wording or adapt? 

Thanks so much again!

Coupon-mad

Remove 'suddenly'.