Advice for re-entering car park - County court claim

Carla23

Hello. I received a claim because i visited a car park in Ancoats Manchester which allows 90 min of free parking. I stayed approx 35 min and left. However i realised i must have left my phone perhaps in one of the shops. I went back 5 min later and stayed aprox 15 min before I left the car park. I am now getting a county court claim from DCB Legal. 

I stayed less than the free 90 min but I came back less than an hour to look for a lost item. 

Any advise on how I can defend this. 

Much appreciated

Gr1pr

Which parking company   ?  ECP  ?

Study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad 

Plus use the defence template in the defence template thread,  adapting a couple of paragraphs 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

kryten3000

DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue a defended claim.

Unless you admitted to being the driver on both occasions, they have no proof that the same driver returned within the "no return" period. 

Carla23

So would I defend that it wasn’t the same driver? 

Gr1pr

And the Issue date is  ??

Also,  you left your password on show,  unredacted 

Baysentry via DCB Legal,  using MCOL 

Carla23

Would they be suspicious if the car returned within 5 minutes? Thanks for your advice 

Carla23

I’ve come across this online, would it be worth including this on the defence:

Even if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is fully compliant with PoFA, the private parking company cannot simply hold the Keeper liable for an "unknown driver’s" liability unless they can prove that the same driver returned.

If a different driver returned with the vehicle, then the original driver (who was the one bound by the "No Return" restriction) did not breach the contract. The parking company would have no evidence that the Keeper’s vehicle was driven by the same individual.

PoFA does not impose liability on the Keeper for any and all drivers who use the vehicle—only for the breach committed by a specific, identifiable driver. If the parking operator cannot prove that the returning driver was the same as the original driver, then no enforceable breach exists.

Car1980

I wouldn't major on "who was the driver?" because arguing the doctrine of impracticability is more effective. But don't admit at this stage because they still have to prove it (not that this will likely ever go to a hearing).

Use the template defence and use something like this in paragraph 3:


3.(a) The driver of the Defendant's vehicle parked the vehicle on the premises to legitimately visit the shops. They left well within the permitted 90 minutes.

(b) After leaving, it was realised a phone had been left one of the shops and so the vehicle returned 5 minutes later to retrieve it and was on site a second time for approximately 15 minutes.

(c) It is submitted that the Claimant's alleged contractual breach of "no return within (no period specified in the inadequate particulars)" is voided through doctrine of impracticability. Leaving an item and returning to retrieve it is hardly an unusual act, and it is not uncommon for parking companies to attempt to profit from such mundane occurrences as returning to a shop because the purchase of a bottle of milk has been forgotten. The purpose of the Claimant's condition is to prevent people attempting to double their allotted parking time by leaving and returning, not for circumstances such as occurred, so there is clearly no legitimate interest in place.

James_Poisson

It's an ambiguous condition anyway, if you are allowed 90 mins on site, in my view you could go out and return within that 90 minutes, drive around the car park for 90 minutes, move your vehicle 10 times in the car park in 90 minutes the landowner has not by their own terms lost anything, and I bet the signs do not say "no return within one hour of any initial period of parking"? 

In addition as the VRN only traces a vehicles movement not the driver(s) and  another driver could quite easily and independently drive it to the same car park again how on earth can they make this stick. You could in your appeal name two drivers even. 

Car1980

Yep. The technical term is effing bollox mate

The_Slithy_Tove

Carla23 said:

So would I defend that it wasn’t the same driver? 

Only if that were the case, which, by your initial description, it is not. Do not lie. There are ways to word the defence suggesting "how do they know this isn't the case," (as already suggested) and leave them to work it out.