I Park Services CCJ Defence Help Needed

technerd2025

Hi fellow users, I am truly indebted to you all for the perfect advice given on the newbies forum on template defence for private parking firms CCJs. 

I was hoping someone could read through my "facts known to the defendant" part of the template and advise if I need to change anything. All advice is much appreciated.

I Park services are currently chasing a CCJ against me for parking in a private car park where they have stated that I allegedly was "parking without a permit or authority after a period of purchased parking has expired (overstayed without authority)". On the date of the alleged incident I had used the private car park and parked my vehicle and paid for 1hr parking. However the shopping center I was visiting did not have a toilet when leaving and hence I had to leave the center and look elsewhere to find a public toilet.

I had returned to the car park to extend my parking time by another 1 hour paid parking only to go find a toilet to use. This car park uses ANPR and it had detected that I had overstayed my allocated parking time by 15 minutes between the ending of my 1st parking session to the start of my extended parking session. This obviously did not take into account any grace periods and most likely boiled down to a minor overstay of 5 minutes before parking was extended by further payment, taking into account a 10 minute grace period. 

I have used the newbies defence template and the following is my "facts known to the defendant" part of the template. Can you please advise me on what parts need editing and changing/removing. All help is greatly appreciated as always.

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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 recognized and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. The defendant denies that an overstay without authority had occurred as the defendant had paid for parking on the date of the alleged POC (15/04/2024). The defendant states that the payment meter within the car park was not printing and therefore is not in receipt of a physical parking ticket. The defendant states payment for period of 2 hours parking was made, it is evident that there was no breach of terms as claimed by the claimant. The defendant has provided bank statement showing 2 separate payments made on the day of alleged totaling £2.00 GBP, defendant bank statements are attached as Exhibit A & Exhibit B respectfully.

7.The defendant states that 2 separate payments had been made as period of parking was extended to allow defendant to use the bathroom and that the period of parking covers the entire time that the defendant was using the car park therefore no breach of terms had occurred as alleged by claimant. The defendant states that the whole period of parking was paid for therefore there was no breach of Ts and Cs.

8. The defendant woefully denies that any period of parking had been overstayed without authority. The defendant respectfully asks the claimant to provide proof of service record for payment point of alleged POC car park and has requested calibration data for the ANPR camera that had been used to pursue defendant.

9. The defendant states that the carpark in question uses ANPR technology and would like to note that this only records time on site, not parking time nor grace/consideration periods which have not been taken into account, breaching the PPC’s ATA’s CoP.

10. The defendant would also like to bring to your attention the Jopson v Homeguard case number: B9GF0A9E. In particular paragraphs 19 & 20 where His Honour Judge Harris is quoted “The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture.  Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars”. Therefore, the defendant having to extend parking time to find and use toilet facilities falls under the remit of the above case as an example of vicissitude of short duration.

11. The defendant would like to point out that all correspondences sent to the defendants’ address have not been received. The defendant does not live at the address that correspondences have been sent to and did not have a forwarding address of any such postage. The defendant’s address is: (current address) and not as the letters that have been sent to (old address) from the claimant. The defendant moved out of the address last year and has been living at the above address, which is beyond the time that the claimant has been sending correspondence.

(The facts known to the defendant end here and continuation is as on the newbies template)

If anyone can provide some insight or help would be a massive help in sticking it to these private parking companies who only seek to exaggerate and over inflate parking charges.

Kind regards.

Gr1pr

I do not believe that you are fighting or have received a CCJ

I believe that you have received an N1SDT Claim form from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  which means that you are drafting a defence against it 

Post the issue date on the claim form plus the AOS date as well,  also post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

Check the date in the POC,  is it correct   ? Or was the pcn ISSUED on a later date,  by post  ?

Coupon-mad

 "on the date of the alleged POC"

"The D woefully denies"?!

These phrases make no sense.

technerd2025

Gr1pr said:

I do not believe that you are fighting or have received a CCJ

I believe that you have received an N1SDT Claim form from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  which means that you are drafting a defence against it 

Post the issue date on the claim form plus the AOS date as well,  also post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

Check the date in the POC,  is it correct   ? Or was the pcn ISSUED on a later date,  by post  ?

Hi,

Yes I have received a N1SDT Claim form from the CNBC as you have said. What I have pasted in the original post is the draft defence against the CNBC form. 

The date on the claim form is: Issue date: 18 Feb 2025. AOS date: I believe was 06 Mar 2025. The dates are far apart as I only got notice of this letter on the 04th March as I no longer live at the address that the correspondences have been sent so was completely unaware of their existence.

This is the POC and it matches the date that the PCN was originally issued via post.

Gr1pr

So the claim form pack went to an old address 

There is no CCJ, just a court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  totally different 

Issue date 18th Feb, so your deadline is 33 days later at 4pm on 24th March 2025

Which legal company is named on the left hand side under the claimants details,  so second box down  ?

If the pcn was issued by post,  then the incident date was earlier 

technerd2025

Coupon-mad said:

 "on the date of the alleged POC"

"The D woefully denies"?!

These phrases make no sense.

Hi Coupon-mad,

Thanks for pointing this out, I have edited it as it didn't make sense.

technerd2025

Gr1pr said:

So the claim form pack went to an old address 

There is no CCJ, just a court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  totally different 

Issue date 18th Feb, so your deadline is 33 days later at 4pm on 24th March 2025

Which legal company is named on the left hand side under the claimants details,  so second box down  ?

If the pcn was issued by post,  then the incident date was earlier 

Hi, 

Thanks for getting back to me Gr1pr, you have been a massive help figuring things out so far so really appreciate all the help.

The legal company named on the 2nd box down is: DCB Legal LTD with their address in Runcorn and a phone number. They are acting as the legal company for I PARK services LTD.

The PCN was issued by post, not entirely sure what you mean by incident date being earlier as the car park uses ANPR technology that clocked my license plate and according to what they are saying - the incident took place on 15/04/2024.

Thanks for all the help mate.

1505grandad

".... the incident took place on 15/04/2024."

That is the parking event date?  -  the ISSUE date of the  pcn will be a few days later (they have to obtain DVLA data)  -  so the PoC are stating an incorrect fact.

Coupon-mad

Just use the Template Defence.

Self explanatory once you read it and you just copy the paragraph 3 by @shahib_02 changing the date.