Small claim from Carflow Moorside overstay

kobonet

Hello,

PCN relates to a parking event which took place on 21-Feb-22 between 16:13 and 19:35, with a stay duration of 3 hours 22 minutes. After entering the site, Payment was made at 16:20 for 3 hours. Carflow is claiming an overstay for 22 minutes. 

Do I technically overstay from the minutes I entered or from the time when I paid?

I haven’t managed to make an appeal to POPLA but only to carflow initially. Does this impact my defence?

I’m trying to follow the template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

How should I denied the POC? Any guidance is highly appreciated!

Gr1pr

Get the AOS done online on MCOL first, following the Dropbox advice in the newbies sticky thread,  second post 

The POC does not state the breach,  so you want to adapt the Chan and Akande template defence 

As for any alleged breach,  it's not an overstay,  its insufficient payment for the total time on site,  overstays are on free car parks, pay to park car parks generally require full payment from entry time to exit time,  with a minimum grace period of 10 minutes to exit the car park at the end of the parking session 

But that alleged breach is not pleaded in the POC,  so Chan Akande 

kobonet

Thank you for your advise. Yes I shall get AOS done first.

Regarding the template, it says 
6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

Shall I denied each of the points in POC?

Gr1pr

You should look at recent defences using Chan and Akande and adapt yours accordingly,  but any defence always challenges the POC,  especially a POC with woeful particulars 

Coupon-mad

kobonet said:

Thank you for your advise. Yes I shall get AOS done first.

Regarding the template, it says 
6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

Shall I denied each of the points in POC?

Yes, if you can truthfully deny.  Do not mention overstay because the POC doesn't.

The alternative is to use Contestor Legal's 'no win no fee' application to strike out service. Search the forum.

kobonet

Just to add additional context, during the PCN appeal, Carflow provided evidences of signage and are compliance with BPA:

To clarify, this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) relates to a parking event which took place on 21-Feb-22 between 16:13 and 19:35, with a stay duration of 3 hours 22 minutes. After entering the site, the motorist made a payment of £X.XX at 16:20, which was insufficient to cover the full parking event.

There are 21 signs relating to the parking restrictions in XXXXXX. Carflow erected all of these signs on 18-Mar-21, which includes 1 entrance sign, 9 rules signs and updates to the 1 tariff boards and 2 tariff rules signs, 2 online payment signs, and 5 large tariff notices. We have attached a Site Appendix for your convenience, which includes a map detailing the location of these signs and a large number of photos of the signs in place. The purpose of the entrance signs are to notify motorists that the site is private land, parking tariffs apply and to invite motorists to check the rules signs around the car park for further details of the terms and conditions of parking. These rules signs are clearly visible around the site and notify motorists that Carflow are responsible for parking enforcement at the car park. Our signage design and text complies with all requirements of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. This has been confirmed by the British Parking Association. The Code of Practice states that signs should be 450mm x 450mm - our signs are 46% larger at 625mm x 475mm. Motorists should not assume that parking is free or otherwise before consulting the signs. Our signs are sufficiently visible during the day and at night should motorists wish to read them.

I have adopted the Chan and Akande template and having done some research and others' wording, can you review if below wordings are suitable? Is 6.2 suitable in my case given the additional context above? I didn't  mention about overstay as previously been advice.

6. The defendant has made an attempt to respond to the POC as follows:

6.1 Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 21/02/2022" (the date of the alleged visit). 

6.2 It is not clear based on the POC weather the vehicle was parked in breach of the Claimants terms. The Defendant denies agreement to any contract on the basis that the signage provided at the car park was unclear as is typically the case with this Claimant to entrap motorists.

6.3 The Defendant does not agree to pay the sum stated within the PCN nor had the Defendant agreed to pay any sum within 28 days (of an unspecified date). The Claimant had refused to enter further discussion with the defendant despite attempts at reasonable resolution.

6.4 The costs specified within the POC appear exaggerated and unjustified; no other heads of costs are broken down beyond £170 in respect of the claimed PCN. 

6.5 Liability for any sum in respect of this claim is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all issues raised in this defence.

Coupon-mad

I'd get Contestor Legal to strike this out instead of defending this one.

kobonet

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get Contestor Legal to strike this out instead of defending this one.

Is there a reason why I shouldn’t defending it by myself? Is it going to cost a bit to get Contestor Legal involved? 

ChirpyChicken

kobonet said:

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get Contestor Legal to strike this out instead of defending this one.

Is there a reason why I shouldn’t defending it by myself? Is it going to cost a bit to get Contestor Legal involved? 

No nothing but how long do you have left to defend.

Car1980

"Just to add additional context, during the PCN appeal, Carflow provided evidences of signage and are compliance with BPA"

The signs can be as big as the moon, but they haven't stated what they actually say in their court claim. "The Defendant did something and we have signs" is not a valid court claim.

Coupon-mad

kobonet said:

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get Contestor Legal to strike this out instead of defending this one.

Is there a reason why I shouldn’t defending it by myself? Is it going to cost a bit to get Contestor Legal involved? 

Costs nothing. It's no-win-no-fee for their strike out service. They recoup their costs from the Claimant.

My reasoning is that (if Carflow have any say) this claim will not be discontinued, it will otherwise go to a hearing. Carflow are like Rottweilers and used to litigate their own cases so they won't be averse to sending someone in person to turn up at a hearing themselves and try to walk all over you.

And this is an overstay allegation. 15 mins past paid-for time.

And their signs are better than most, IMHO.

Yours is an uphill battle compared to the easy ones we see, so why not try to squash it like a fly at the outset, free of charge? If this will be Manchester Court I think their (good) judges will be fine to indulge the strike out application for Jackson Yamba.

I think at a hearing, a defence against this overstay will be harder than the Contestor Legal free option.

Did you already do the AOS?