PCN Parking Eye Retail Park - Help

Gr1pr

MeterBeater said:

Evening All, 

Apologies its taken some time to write but please see my draft defence below:

"Due to the passage of two years since the date in question, the Defendant's recollection is understandably vague. From what he can recall, he and his partner visited the retail center for Christmas shopping. He parked in an available designated parking bay and spent the morning browsing the shops on site. He departed some time later and returned home. Subsequently, he received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post, indicating that he had overstayed in a time-restricted parking area.

The Defendant was unaware of any time restrictions at the retail center. He did not observe any signage near his vehicle indicating the terms and conditions of use. The signage present was obscured and unreadable from his parking location, thus failing to adequately alert motorists.

Upon reviewing the PCN, the Defendant noted that the charge was issued for exceeding the allowable three-hour period by eleven minutes. According to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC), a grace period of at least 10 minutes should be provided for drivers to return to their vehicles and exit the parking area. Had ParkingEye adhered to these standards, the Defendant's overstay would have been reduced to a mere one minute.

Additionally, due to council roadworks in the vicinity at that time, entry and exit from the retail park were significantly delayed, making it challenging to leave within the allotted time. On the day in question, the Defendant spent over £200 at various stores within the retail park."

This will be what I write in section 3 of the template.

Your thoughts are much appreciated. On a side note Parking Eye have emailed me directly following the land agent contacting them, stating they would accept £70 for settlement. 

I would remove the strike out section, replacing it with something like 

Then the PCN should not have been issued, de minimis should have been applied 

1505grandad

"Upon reviewing the PCN, the Defendant noted that the charge was issued for exceeding the allowable three-hour period by eleven minutes."

You are only defending the PoC on the claim form  -  as already advised by KeithP:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81134947/#Comment_81134947

Coupon-mad

In the 3rd paragraph of the template defence itself, I provide a link.

Looks like you missed it?

And @KeithP already told you that yours is a case where the breach is not specified.  So why aren't you using the defence wording order (with Chan images) for cases like yours?

Just add brief info about the circumstances as your Paragraph 5 (after the Chan images) but also deny the allegations. As seen in every thread like this. There are loads of multiple PCN claim threads. We win 99% of the time!

I hate providing links to threads because it stops people seeing how to hop around and finding & reading threads for themselves. But in the spirit of the Season, here's one showing what to put for para 5 (IN YOUR CASE):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

That shows you some 'deny the POC' wording to include in the facts para after Chan. Just add a line about the circumstances & facts that you know, or (if true) that it's too long ago to know any facts.

Then follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

MeterBeater

Thanks for the feedback all, looks like I might have barked up the wrong tree, will rewrite and post ASAP

MeterBeater

Evening all,

Apologies I must have missed the comments on the original template regarding the hharry100 case and now understand that I may have been admitting to a bit too much in my first draft. Please see below my updated defence. Bold text is where I have changed the template.

"1.  The Defendant denies that...

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating....

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44)....

-------- 4 x Chan images (am I okay to copy these images from someone else's defence? Or do I need to find the original documents and make some of my own screen grabs?)

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's.... Keeper AND DRIVER.

5. Due to the passage of two years since the date in question, the Defendant's recollection is understandably vague. From what the Defendant can recall, they visited the retail centre for Christmas shopping. The Defendant parked in an available designated parking bay and spent the morning browsing the shops on site. The Defendant departed some time later and returned home. Subsequently, the Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post, indicating that the driver had overstayed in a time-restricted parking area.

6. The Defendant was unaware of any time restrictions at the retail centre. The Defendant did not observe any signage near the vehicle indicating the terms and conditions of use. The signage present must have been obscured and unreadable from the parking location, thus failing to adequately alert motorists.

7. Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 05/11/2020" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."

As previously, your comments are greatly appreciated!!

Coupon-mad

Remove paragraph 5 and 6.

The POC doesn't say it's about an overstay, so don't hand them that on a plate!

Also search for:

Two Chan Akande defence

MeterBeater

Afternoon, 

Thank you for the feedback. 

So the defence will read as below:

"1.  The Defendant denies that...

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are now two persuasive Appeal judgments to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based on the following persuasive authority.

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande 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 first 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.

-------- 4 x Chan images 

The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript below).

-------- 4 x Akande images 

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's.... Keeper AND DRIVER.

5. Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 05/11/2020" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."

For anyone need the Akande transcript I found it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?e=2&rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=shgrpcyf&dl=0

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/private-car-park-court-summons/15/

I am going to send this defence out today as I am running close to the deadline. Any final approval from yourself is much much much appreciated!!!

1505grandad

In op you stated  -  "This happened back in Nov 2022....."

However you state in para 5:-

" Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 05/11/2020" (the date of the alleged visit)."

MeterBeater

Very true thank you for pointing out!!

Coupon-mad

That's a great example of a defence especially for a DCB Legal ParkingEye claim (the breach is never stated at the moment in these cases).

I would just add the extra sentence here because we know ParkingEye never have extra costs on their signs:

The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.  Neither does the Claimant have anything on their signage about adding some imaginary £70 'fee/cost' which is unjust enrichment only seen from this rogue industry. It is impossible for the Claimants to argue that £170 was a matter of 'agreed contract' and they are put to strict proof of all of their allegations.