Help Defending A Very Silly PCN From UK CAR PARK MANAGMENT LIMITED

Surj_iN

Thanks guys really appreciate your advice 

Surj_iN

Sorry to open this thread again but I'm a little confused.

I've followed the guidance on the Newbie thread and started my defence with the Gladstone specific 'alternative defence' but when searching double dip defence true the threads I find seem to be relevant to customer parking and not residential. If it were a customer car park it would be an obvious case of double dipping but as its a residential car park does it still apply?

I feel a little silly asking but thank you for your time     

Surj_iN

Also, in paragraph 6 of the template defence in brackets it says 'Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one'. Forgive me and I know this is 'MY' defence but what specially should I focus on here?

@KeithP  you mentioned in a previous message this:

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

So it is alleged that the driver 'parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract')'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.  

Should I basically reword this?

Thanks again  

Coupon-mad

No because you already have that wording (already written for you) in the first post of the Template Defence thread where I provide a special link for Gladstones claims. You've clearly found it because you know your facts go in as paragraph 6.

As for the double dip issue, your case is EXACTLY the same as a retail park double dip. Glow Babies is a business and the car park is operated by remote cameras and you visited twice. Exactly the same as any double dip.

Also, in paragraph 6 of the template defence in brackets it says 'Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one'. Forgive me and I know this is 'MY' defence but what specially should I focus on here? l

The double dip wording you found in other defences, suitably edited to make sense.

Surj_iN

Thanks for clearing that up, I'll give it a go 

Surj_iN

Hi again,

so grateful for your time and help and sorry to be asking for clarification again but reading your latest reply, it seems I made it sound as though the car park is for the use of Glow baby customers. It isn't anything to do with the Glow Baby company - the car park is for residents of the flats above and is managed by an external company with remote cameras. As such, the double dipping stands, but does the residential element impact the case at all? To clarify, we never actually parked in any of the designated spaces even for drop off or pick up. 

thanks again for your help.

Coupon-mad

Just draft a sensible version, then show us.

Surj_iN

Thanks so much, this is a really kind offer of your time and help.

Here is everything I have personalised so far, to be added after paragraph 5 of the Gladstone specific 'alternative defence.' Any advice welcome on wording and what to add or omit. 

·         On 09.04.2024, the Defendant entered the car park in question at 10.48 to drop off their wife, toddler, and new-born at a play centre (Glow Baby) directly adjacent (opening on to) said car park. The Defendant swiftly exited after this drop-off, to run errands elsewhere. The Defendant returned briefly later to collect their family, leaving again by 12.26.

·         The defendant asserts that signage concerning parking regulations is entirely inadequate. It is not externally clear that Glow Baby customers are unable to enter the car park, which could be easily misinterpreted given its location. Further, all text upon signage detailing contract of use relevant to this claim is so small as to be illegible from within an approaching vehicle.

·         The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to fully review their ANPR images and failed to properly consider the circumstances of the Defendant’s parking sessions. The Claimant's actions in pursuing this matter are indicative of a lack of due diligence. 

·         The Defendant submits that the Claimant's actions in acquiring the Defendant's personal data from the DVLA were unlawful under the DPA 2018. The Claimant did not have a legitimate basis to access the Defendant's details, as the vehicle was not in contravention of parking regulations.

·         The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has committed an offence under the DPA 2018 by wrongfully obtaining the Defendant’s personal data from the DVLA based on a false claim of a parking contravention. The Claimant has caused unnecessary distress to the Defendant by relentlessly harassing the defendant pursuing this false claim, which amounts to a breach of the Defendant's rights under the DPA 2018.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

I don't think you used the term double dip or cited the Code of Practice. You need to copy what people have written before. This wasn't a single parking period.

Surj_iN

Yes my apologies. To the above after paragraph 1 I'd add this,

• The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s claim arises from a mistaken interpretation of the vehicle’s movements and the associated parking sessions and is a clear case of “double dipping” as referred to in the IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1). 

• The Defendant further asserts that "double dipping" (where a vehicle is mistakenly recorded as having overstayed when it has in fact exited and re-entered the car park during the same day -  IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1)) is a common occurrence, leading to an inaccurate claim of a parking violation.

• The Defendant would like to bring to the attention the specifics in the IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1): ‘The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15).