LINK PARKING - 'County Court Claim Form' Received

My thoughts are:

You need to defend this. That's all there is to it really.
Start by doing the Acknowledgement of Service as described, in pictures, in the NEWBIES thread.


If you want any help with that then you'll need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.
What 'conflicting thoughts' have you seen there?

I parked in an area in front of a property I was staying in for work which showed no signage or lines on the road. There was a sign the other side of the road some way down but that showed no indication of the area I was parked in being subject to those terms (I have plenty of photos I took at the time).

Sounds well worth defending at your local court, and we do see posters beat Gladstones 99% of the time, when they stick around and realise it's more than just sending a defence in by email to the court.

There's a bit more paperwork than that, and your evidence/photos will go with your WS, later.

No risk in defending a case, no-one should pay these. Show us your draft defence once you've done the AOS, assuming the Defendant is you, not a family member, etc.

Link Parking Ltd and First Parking Limited are both mentioned in there.

There is no mention of the October 2017 Pre-Action Protocols for Debt Claims. Did your LBC comply with that?

I think you might be able to find a more up to date, and therefore more suitable, Defence. Look at a few from the NEWBIES thread.

Statement of Defence

should just be Defence

Independent Parking Committee

should be International Parking Community.

And if Gladstones sent a LBC in 2018, then it was probably compliant with the PAP, so not worth mentioning in a defence, IMHO.

5. It is not admitted that on ******* the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ********.

Is this what you really want to say, deny it was there at all? There will be evidence in the form of photos, so usually - unless your car really was not there - this will not help your defence. Do not say such things!

5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

Again, is this what you really want to say? If you are at all aware of the event, is it likely the car would look like it was 'giving way' i.e. in the middle of the road with a driver sitting in it? If not, don't say this.

6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

Oooh, be careful, this is court. Really? DENIED? Yet the Defendant who denies being the driver, goes on to say:

9.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

9.2. The Defendant avers that the signage was so woefully inadequate that even upon receiving the 'Parking Charge Notice' from the Claimant, the Defendant was still unable to find any relevant signage anywhere within the vicinity of the vehicle and had to spend some time looking for it.

9.3 At the time of the material events, there were also no signs at the entrance to the parking area.

And I read through that defence fairly closely and could find nothing at all to tell me what the event was about, or what your defence position really is. You should be saying what actually happened and what right the driver had to park there, if they did.

Talk about the fact the driver was staying there, was fully authorised to park and there was no obligation to display a permit. And that there were no signs/lines at all on that part of the road. It was not a car park, looked like an unrestricted road and any circumspect driver knows that signs on the opposite sign of the carriageway NEVER relate to the side where you are parked.

You don't deny being the driver if you were!

Either defend it honestly as the driver, so you can talk about the event and signs openly in court, or defend it as keeper (edit your opening post above so the info you gave us isn't spotted by the PPC and used against you in court) and talk about the driver in the third person and put the Claimant to strict proof of the driver's identity and that they fully complied with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, in order to transfer liability to the keeper.

For this reason:

received a NTK from them dated the 26th December

I would be VERY tempted to defend this as registered keeper, and point out that the NTK cannot POSSIBLY, not even in PPC World la-la land, have been posted on Boxing Day. There is no way the PPC's office was open that day, and even if it was and some sad PPC git was churning out PCNs because they have nothing better to do in life, they cannot POSSIBLY have put those in the Royal Mail system on Boxing Day. The POFA schedule 4 even clarifies working days only, count, when talking about the date sent or served.

Therefore apart from any other failings (e.g. inadequate notice of the parking charge on sparse signage, no relevant obligation or relevant contract) the NTK is not compliant with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 because it fails to communicate the date of sending.

When did you receive the NTK, before or after the New Year?

What date was the parking event, first week in November, or later?