G24 & DCBL - Parked Outside Marked Bay - Aug 2019 - Defense

Car1980

Yeah you could get into minimum space length etc., but they're going to discontinue anyway.

TheCornishRambler

Good morning all.

I'll be leaving the rest of the template as is. Below are paragraphs 2-3.12

Based on the claim history on MCOL

A claim was issued against you on 21/05/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/05/2025 at 15:29:37

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 27/05/2025 at 01:07:3

I believe I need to submit my defence before 23/06/2025. I'm keen to get seomthing submitted soon though as it seems the most important thing is to have some sort of defence submitted.

Thanks

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 but was not the driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 01/08/2019, as alleged. 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.

3.1 The driver, a lone female, had a one-month-old baby and parked in a way that allowed safe access to the car’s boot to remove the pram and transfer the infant.

3.2 There were no parent-and-child bays at this site.

3.3 The parking bays at this location are unusually short, measuring only 4.65 metres in length (as confirmed by the driver), whereas the vehicle measures 4.9 metres. According to the Institution of Structural Engineers (IstructE), the recommended parking bay length is 5 metres.

3.4 The vehicle could not fit entirely within the bay without the rear protruding into the car park roadway. If parked in this way, it would not have been safe to access the boot due to the risk of passing vehicles.

3.5 The driver was alarmed by the presence of a man lurking in bushes within the otherwise empty car park near closing time. It is now believed this individual was a parking enforcement officer waiting to photograph the vehicle. Instead of offering assistance or advice, this person chose to wait and take photos, which undermines any claim to fairness in enforcement.

3.6 The driver parked in the safest available manner, ensuring no obstruction to other users, and hurried into the store seeking safety.

3.7 Signage displaying terms and conditions was not prominently visible—or potentially absent entirely. ANPR cameras are now in place, but it is not possible to verify retrospectively what signage was present at the material time.

3.8 The driver did not feel safe exiting the vehicle to search for signage while an unknown man was seen loitering nearby.

3.9 It would have been unsafe and unreasonable to leave a one-month-old baby alone in the car while checking for signage in the dark or in the presence of a potentially suspicious person.

3.10 As a result, the driver was not and could not reasonably have been made aware of any contractual terms.

3.11 A PCN was issued to the registered keeper (the Defendant), who was not the driver. The PCN contained no clear information about the specific terms allegedly breached, other than a vague reference to "Parked Outside a Marked Bay."

3.12 The Defendant attempted to appeal the charge in good faith by submitting an appeal letter to G24 at the address provided. However, the appeal was returned undelivered. This gives the impression that G24 was not interested in resolving the matter fairly and failed to acknowledge a legitimate appeal submitted within the prescribed period.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's perfect except change:

a parking enforcement officer 

to

an employee or self ticketer (chasing a bounty per PCN)