Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 11th Nov 16, 3:44 PM
    • 2,271Posts
    • 6,597Thanks
    bargepole
    Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them
    • #1
    • 11th Nov 16, 3:44 PM
    Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them 11th Nov 16 at 3:44 PM
    Based on direct experience of appearing in dozens of small claims parking case hearings, I believe i can say with some authority what is likely to work, and what isn't. We see on these forums many examples of completely irrelevant defence points posted by OPs who have simply cut and pasted an out-of-date template from somewhere, and sometimes unfortunately well-meaning but wrong advice from some of the regulars here, who have no real world experience of arguing before a Judge.

    This non-exhaustive list will help posters to avoid using defences which are unlikely to advance their case, and which are more likely to turn the Judge against them.

    No loss to PPC: There doesn't have to be any more, since the Supreme Court ruling in Parking Eye v Beavis. All they have to show is that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the car park. So don't use phrases like 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' (GPEOL), that's a guaranteed loser. Also, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) is a dead duck following that Beavis ruling.

    Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's indentity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver.

    No Planning Permission for Signage: Many PPCs erect signage without first obtaining permission from the Council to do so. But that is only relevant if you can show evidence that the Council has commenced enforcement action against the PPC, then you could plead the illegality defence. Otherwise, a Judge is unlikely to consider this point.

    PPC has previously been suspended from DVLA data access: So what. That is not relevant to your case.

    Complaints have been lodged against their solicitors: Again, so what. That won't affect your case.

    No Letter Before Claim / Pre-action Protocols not followed: At worst, the PPC will get a slapped wrist from the Judge. But it won't be fatal to their case.

    Distinguishing your case from Beavis: The fact that Parking Eye paid 1,000 a week to operate in that case makes no difference at all, the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts. You need to concentrate on things that make your case substantially different, otherwise you're unlikely to win.

    I didn't see the signs: Unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, that the signage in the car park was obscured, printed in a tiny font, high up on poles or otherwise unreadable, this is a rubbish argument. The signs are there to be seen, and you should have seen them.

    I can't afford to pay: This cuts no ice with Judges, and is not a reason for dismissing the claim. If Judgment is given against you, you can agree a monthly payment plan with the Claimant, but that's discretionary.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 33. Lost 10.
Page 2
    • emski15
    • By emski15 21st May 17, 6:48 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    emski15
    How do I start my own thread? Really struggling to figure all this out.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st May 17, 6:52 PM
    • 17,641 Posts
    • 27,896 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    How do I start my own thread? Really struggling to figure all this out.
    Originally posted by emski15
    Go to the forum thread list, one page back from this one. Go to top of that page and scroll down a couple of inches (sorry, only deal in old money) and there's a red button on the l/h side just above the start of the forum thread list. Press that.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 13th Jul 17, 12:07 AM
    • 8,502 Posts
    • 8,816 Thanks
    pogofish
    KEKL - You really need to read the Newbies Sticky carefully, then start your own thread - with a bit more info for that kind of help.

    Hijacking a discussion thread isn't the way forward here.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 4th Oct 17, 10:12 AM
    • 35,623 Posts
    • 19,852 Thanks
    Quentin
    You won't get any replies here.


    Everyone is asked to first read the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum before posting.


    Court claims and how to defend them is comprehensively covered there


    If you need further advice then start a new thread
    • Finglish2002
    • By Finglish2002 5th Oct 17, 1:00 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Finglish2002
    CEL Defence
    Hi.
    How valid is saggi's defence now given we are in the same boat?. I am about to file the N244 and witness statement. We have used saggi's arguments but your thoughts may differ? Can i post our witness statement for review and comnent?
    • Martin101
    • By Martin101 17th Dec 17, 3:56 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Martin101
    Part of my defence is that the photo is very very dark and the number plate in not included and it is in fact so dark to say whether it had a permit displayed or not would be very difficult - does this have legs?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Dec 17, 4:13 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,131 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes definitely.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bmc1605
    • By bmc1605 15th Jan 18, 6:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    bmc1605
    hi,

    In relation to the comment about Unfair Contracts, has the following piece of official guidance been tested before?

    Guidance from the Department of Transport via their official document, !!!8216;Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges!!!8217; states:
    - In Section 7.1: clear signage in the car park can allow the establishment of a !!!8220;contract to park!!!8221; between the landowner and a driver.
    - In Section 7.2: If the signage is insufficient, the contractual term is not fair, and thus the premise noted in Section 7.1 is invalid and !!!8220;cannot be relied upon to enforce a parking charge!!!8221;.

    My friend is in dispute regarding a UKCPM/Gladstones 'ticket' for supposedly not using a valid permit. The companies in the building were issuing white permits (which UKCPM/Gladstones have not specifically said was invalid) which the building management confirmed were valid. The signage only mentions Blue and Red permits, so is clearly inconsistent with the permits being issued.

    Has this any weight as an argument?

    Thanks.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Jan 18, 6:38 PM
    • 7,246 Posts
    • 6,775 Thanks
    KeithP
    In relation to the comment about Unfair Contracts, has the following piece of official guidance been tested before?
    Originally posted by bmc1605
    Yes, many times.
    It is included in the BPA initial appeal template and almost always included in any PoPLA appeal.

    Now ask the question, or perhaps the next question, on your own thread.
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-01-2018 at 6:40 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 18, 8:35 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,131 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes it's a fundamental principle of contract law and is in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which is even more official & recent.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • question1
    • By question1 27th Jan 18, 3:39 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    question1
    I followed advice I had read on here to dispute an parking fine from PCM on the grounds it was excessive. I used the template letter, and have now got back a rejection letter from PCM Ltd (as expected) telling me to look up the Bevis vs ParkingEye case.

    In this thread, which I've only just found, it advises against that. But what happens if I have tried that and its been rejected. What's the best course of action now?

    In my case the situation is I parked in a private car park that I am entitled to free parking in as I am a member of the gym in the building.
    As its January, the gym is packed out, meaning the gym's allocated parking spaces were full, so I parked in one of the many free spaces.
    The car park is underground in London for offices, gym and residence in the building directly above.
    I had parked in one the of office spaces that we empty and 2 spaces along from the gym allocated spaces at 6.30pm, so after the majority of office workers had gone home, hence all the free spaces.

    Many thanks in advance for any help!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Jan 18, 3:45 PM
    • 7,246 Posts
    • 6,775 Thanks
    KeithP
    Question1, you would be wise to start your own thread.

    Trying to address the issues of more than one person in a single thread can only lead to confusion.

    But you know that already. It has already been mentioned several times in this thread.
    .
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 27th Jan 18, 3:45 PM
    • 36,649 Posts
    • 83,018 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I followed advice I had read on here to dispute an parking fine from PCM on the grounds it was excessive. I used the template letter, and have now got back a rejection letter from PCM Ltd (as expected) telling me to look up the Bevis vs ParkingEye case.

    In this thread, which I've only just found, it advises against that. But what happens if I have tried that and its been rejected. What's the best course of action now?
    Originally posted by question1
    This thread is for information about court defences, and what not to put in them. It's not about the next stage in your appeal process. This is covered in the NEWBIES and you should start your own separate thread if you need further help.

    If you appealed as keeper, you shouldn't be telling people here who was driving/who parked, or in your own thread if/when you start one.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • question1
    • By question1 27th Jan 18, 3:46 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    question1
    OK thanks, will start a new thread now.
    • Gliderider
    • By Gliderider 15th Apr 18, 1:32 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Gliderider
    I've recently received an anpr pcn from parking eye for an overstay in a store carpark. I suffer from frequent bouts of migraine, I have medication from my GP. On the date in question I had a severe migraine and couldn't drive until my vision and headache cleared. Is this a relevant defence?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Apr 18, 1:46 AM
    • 7,246 Posts
    • 6,775 Thanks
    KeithP
    Gliderider, you would be wise to start your own thread.

    Trying to address the issues of more than one person in a single thread can only lead to confusion.

    But you know that already. It has already been mentioned several times in this thread.

    And no, that isn't a relevant defence. It's a mitigating circumstance.
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-04-2018 at 1:48 AM.
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Apr 18, 9:48 AM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    What on earth convinced Gliderider that this was an appropriate thread on which to post?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th Apr 18, 11:35 AM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Keith - yes it is a defend. Frustration of contract. Change in circumstance meant the vehicle could not be driven. It would have been an offence to do so I believe.
    But it really shouldn't be here. Glider obviousl6 start a new thread.
    • Martin101
    • By Martin101 2nd May 18, 7:55 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Martin101
    I am now listed for court and have used in my defence statement - not yet my witness statement - an issue with the photographic evidence - i.e. i.e. that the picture is very dark could actually have been taken anywhere and shows a dark car in a car park - too dark to make out the car (no reg plate in the photo) and too dark to evidence whether a valid permit was present or not - is this line worth perusing?
    Linked to the same point - although i don't have photos on the evening there was no lighting in the area parked and therefore if signage was in situ it could not be seen or is see read? Any advance welcomed
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd May 18, 7:59 PM
    • 7,246 Posts
    • 6,775 Thanks
    KeithP
    Martin, why have you abandoned your original thread?
    .
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,358Posts Today

6,065Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin