IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

PCM claim form, Ticketed in my own space!

24567

Comments

  • Following through Iam's post - when you bought, the PPC was operating there. However, were you told anything at all about any requirement to display a permit? Did you even inspect the car park before you purchased (I imagine you parked there when you viewed the flat, but did you give it anything other than a cursory glance), or just the flat? This will be relevant for your WS and your Defence.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
  • jw505
    jw505 Posts: 29 Forumite
    Following through Iam's post - when you bought, the PPC was operating there. However, were you told anything at all about any requirement to display a permit? Did you even inspect the car park before you purchased (I imagine you parked there when you viewed the flat, but did you give it anything other than a cursory glance), or just the flat? This will be relevant for your WS and your Defence.

    I was given the parking permit by the previous owner of the flat so in a way I was informed about displaying the permit. But no official introduction from the management agent or the parking control itself. Since I moved in I have been displayed the permit only that night the permit was not on the dash but fell off to the floor....:(
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,572
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Did you ever wonder who might have leant on or shaken the car, then?

    Who was near the car, you know, taking photos? Think about it.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • jw505
    jw505 Posts: 29 Forumite
    the label was not attached to the windscreen. i guess it was just shaken off during my driving?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,572
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Maybe, or maybe someone leaned on the car after it was parked, so the permit fell.

    No idea, and you will never know, but PCM are ex-clampers and SOME of those scum firms (not saying PCM?) used to do that. Some nasty clamper thugs were seen in the past rocking cars to dislodge permits, so we heard.

    Here's claxtome's defence that is a good example of a case against a 'fluttering ticket' which is not dissimilar to a 'dislodged permit':

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73192645#post73192645

    Not the same as yours but has useful words to tell the Judge the Permit was displayed and to suggest that it may have been dislodged after the vehicle was correctly parked, which is outside of the control of the driver.

    It's also a nice one to read from start to finish (long thread but it ends well - a Gladstones case where they have just given up before the hearing!).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • kryten3000
    kryten3000 Posts: 153
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    If only there was an easy way to identify vehicles that are authorised to park, some sort of plate attached to the front and rear perhaps?
  • System
    System Posts: 178,077
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Community Admin
    If only there was an easy way to identify vehicles that are authorised to park, some sort of plate attached to the front and rear perhaps?

    You could have a fancy name for it such as a "whitelist"
  • jw505
    jw505 Posts: 29 Forumite
    Hi All, was quite busy on other things and only got time to finish the defence statement before the deadline today. I calculated Issue date 12/03/18 + 5 days (day of service) + 28 days (with AOS) = 14/04/18, correct? I plan to wait for your comments before submitting it, can I submit it online tomorrow (15/04/18)?

    I plan to use Johnersh's template and adapt to suit my case. some thoughts/questions:
    1. I am the only driver named on the car at the time, should I remove the Point 5?
    2. I assume Point 6 is my main defence. should I state I have the parking permit covering the ticket date.
    3. @CM, should I add 5.1-5.3 from claxtome's defence? or any other points?
    4. My contract only say right to park at allocated space but not mentioning displaying a permit all time (Point 5 in #7). How should I defend upon this?
    5. I will request SAR from PCM on this case.

    As always, any help is very much appreciated!!

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.
    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]
    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a “relevant obligation”; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
    7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,426
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    jw505 wrote: »
    Hi All, was quite busy on other things and only got time to finish the defence statement before the deadline today. I calculated Issue date 12/03/18 + 5 days (day of service) + 28 days (with AOS) = 14/04/18, correct? I plan to wait for your comments before submitting it, can I submit it online tomorrow (15/04/18)?

    You actually have up to 4pm on Monday to file you defence, but you are right not to leave it to the very last moment.

    When satisfied, send it as a signed pdf email attachment to the easily found ccbcaq email address.
  • jw505
    jw505 Posts: 29 Forumite
    KeithP wrote: »
    You actually have up to 4pm on Monday to file you defence, but you are right not to leave it to the very last moment.

    When satisfied, send it as a signed pdf email attachment to the easily found ccbcaq email address.
    Thanks KeithP for the reply. I will wait for some more comments and upload the defence tomorrow evening. anything on the points?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards