Defence review requested following Claim Form - Was delivering meal to resident at assisted living

bagold

I would appreciate if anyone can review my Defence. I have acknowledged the Claim Form online as advised in Newbies thread. Claim is by Civil Enforcement Limited. For the life of me I cannot find the original Penalty Charge Notice.Unfortunately we ignored all previous corespondence. 

My wife parked her car in the car park (but not in a bay) of an assisted living residence for a short time (she believes 10 to 15 minutes). This is to deliver a meal to one of the residence (in a personal capacity not as delivery driver). 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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. 

 

3.  The Defendant was only stationary in the car park for a short period of time (10-15 minutes) while making a delivery of home cooked food to one of the residents at xxxx Court on 6 July 2025.  The resident, for whom the meal was being delievered, has mobility issues and is not able to answer the door within the time a personal with normal physcial capacity can. The Defendant's car was not causing an obstruction to other vehicles including emergency vehicles. There is no alternative parking available within the car park or outside the car park within a reasonable distance. Xxx Road immediately outside the car park is unadopted  with no parking available. 

kryten3000

First question is - does Civil Enforcement know who the driver was from an earlier appeal?  If not then there's no reason to "out" the driver at this point.  If they already know the Defendant was the driver, then that should be admitted as "...Defendant was registered keeper and driver."

Car1980

I don't think it really matters at claim stage. If anything I would say you'd be at risk of a judge getting grumpy that the defendant is hiding things in their defence if they aren't clear who was driving (no need for names yet though).

Just means the driver should submit their own WA later on.

Car1980

See definition of parking https://contestorlegal.co.uk/unparalleled-legal-victory-defining-the-true-meaning-of-parking/

Think carefully about the timing. 15 minutes is actually quite a long time. Maybe it was actually only 7 or 8 minutes. Don't guess - 8 minutes is actually quite a long time if you sit and count it out.

bagold

Yes Defendent was registered keeper and driver. Just forgot to add 'and driver'.

Regarding time my wife is just estimating. There is no record of how long she was there. But she has delievered food multiple times before and typically is there for about ten minutes. It takes about 5 minutes for the resident to get to the front door of the residence using her walker. Then about 5 minutes to hand over the food.So not sure what else we should say. But always appreciate and listening to opinion on his forum.

Car1980

Obviously the quicker it is the better for you.

5 minutes to hand over food is a long time for example and people overestimate how long 5 minutes in reality actually is. 

Sit and set you stopwatch and stop it when you think 5 minutes is up. You may be surprised.

bagold

I have found the original PCN, if this makes any difference. It was issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. They time it as 14:39 to 15:07. So from entering car park to leaving 18 minutes (including any time taken for maneouvering). 

Car1980

28 minutes that comes to?

Ok, so what are the exact particulars of claim? 

Coupon-mad

bagold said:

I have found the original PCN, if this makes any difference. It was issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. They time it as 14:39 to 15:07. So from entering car park to leaving 18 minutes (including any time taken for manoeuvring). 

28 minutes but what you describe is covered by the Equality Act 2010 because the person bringing the food to the assisted living resident was a carer when acting in this capacity.

As you say, they were not just a delivery driver. Carers are protected too.

Mention the Equality Act and explain the above in the defence. And cite Jopson v Homeguard. This was not parking.

A person who lives at an assisted living site needs far, far more time to answer the door and manage to move around and engage enough to safely receive the food than an able bodied person would and the Defendant was doing more than more drop off.

Show us the POC. July 2025 event?!

Has she really gone from PCN to claim form in seven weeks flat?!

We have NEVER seen these speedy claims before this year and it's all because the BPA dropped clause 24.4 (the two mandatory reminder letters that were in their Code since 2012).

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

bagold said:

I have found the original PCN, if this makes any difference. It was issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. They time it as 14:39 to 15:07. So from entering car park to leaving 18 minutes (including any time taken for manoeuvring). 

28 minutes but what you describe is covered by the Equality Act 2010 because the person bringing the food to the assisted living resident was a carer when acting in this capacity.

As you say, they were not just a delivery driver. Carers are protected too.

Mention the Equality Act and explain the above in the defence. And cite Jopson v Homeguard. This was not parking.

A person who lives at an assisted living site needs far, far more time to answer the door and manage to move around and engage enough to safely receive the food than an able bodied person would and the Defendant was doing more than more drop off.

Show us the POC. July 2025 event?!

Has she really gone from PCN to claim form in seven weeks flat?!

We have NEVER seen these speedy claims before this year and it's all because the BPA dropped clause 24.4 (the two mandatory reminder letters that were in their Code since 2012).

They would also have missed out the "Letter before action" stage; (if these dates are correct).