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@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

    • faith_f
    • By faith_f 15th Mar 17, 11:04 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 0Thanks
    PCM Hayes and Harlington
    • #1
    • 15th Mar 17, 11:04 AM
    PCM Hayes and Harlington 15th Mar 17 at 11:04 AM
    Hello everyone,
    The acknowledgment has been done and I am working out on my defense. Can you please have a look at it and let me kniw if it's ok.
    This is what I think to write as a defence:

    1 I am the Defendant, .........., DOB, and reside at ......... and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
    2 I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

    a) Insufficient signage: The PCN was issued on a poorly signed road, where the car had to pull over. The Driver was completely unaware that it is not allowed to park for more that 20 minutes, because of the insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary- there were none, at that time.
    b) There were no signs at all to highlight that the Driver was not allowed to stay longer than 20 minutes.
    c) There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.
    d) In their evidence, PCM have stick to that the Driver have parked in a manner whereby it agreed to pay a charge, as the signage in the area is clear and informs motorist of the restrictions the parking is managed under and that enforcement action will be taken for parking in breach of the restrictions. The only sign was attached to high and the text too small for a driver to see while is in the vehicle, meaning it is not obvious for the motorist , where there were other equally unremarkable building company signs. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking on the roadway where the kerb was unmarked. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping' and certainly nothing was seen about permits or how to obtain one, or the charge itself. The IPC Code of practice also gives an example of what the sign should look like. There was no sufficient signage at the site. There was no "P" drawing attention to rules about parking.
    e)The signage was insufficient and illegible, meaning that the Driver did not enter into any agreement about pulling over. I have to state, that the Driver HAS NOT PARKED. THE DRIVER HAD TO STOP TO HELP TO A DISABLE CHILD,WHICH WAS INSIDE THE CAR. The Driver was completely unaware, due to insufficient signage. The PCN was not placed on the windscreen of an occupied car without any attempt to talk to the Driver,whilst it was sat in it to tell it it needed to move. This breaches Part B, section 13.1 of the Code of Practice, referring to professionalism.
    f) The Claimant did not comply with the Part B, section 15 of the Code of Practice regarding grace periods. The photographic evidence submitted by PCM are date and time stamped. It shows the vehicle at 11:58 from the rear back. It then shows the vehicle again from the back at 12:19. I refer to case Vehicle Services LTD vs Ibbotson (2012), in which it is agreed that the Claimant was responsible for mitigating the losses to the landowner. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell the Driver in person that they needed to move the car, but failed to do so.
    3 The IAS is not considered an independent appeals system due to the Assessors' names remaining secret and well-publicised concerns over a conflict of interest. The IAS is a trading name of the IPC who are owned by the same people as the Claimant's Solicitors, Gladstones, who are now bringing this claim. Given this, I do not accept its dismissal of my appeal. Furthermore, PCM submitted false evidence that was accepted by this corrupt system without question.
    I am not willing to accept the decision of the IAS adjudicator who dismissed the appeal, for the reasons stated above.
    4 The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
    5 The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

    6 The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.
    7 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
    8 The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking.
    9 No terms were seen because the car was ticketed before the Driver even set foot out of the car. It was given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected operator.
    10 Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    11 I submit that the IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.

    12 The IAS is a trading name of the IPC, whose Directors are Will Hurley and John Davies. These Directors, having overseen my IAS appeal being unfairly refused, have now filed this claim because they are also the directors of Gladstones solicitors. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of the CPUTRs and is contrary to good faith.
    13 The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact,supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.
    14 Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
    15 It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
    16 It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.
    17 Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
    18 As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
    19 I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell the Driver in person to move on, but failed to do so.
    20 It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
    21 The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.
    22 The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

    I believe that facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Can you please have a look and tell me what I have got wrong.
    Thank you
Page 1
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 15th Mar 17, 11:06 AM
    • 4,262 Posts
    • 4,305 Thanks
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 17, 11:06 AM
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 17, 11:06 AM
    Wrong board. Please PM a board guide (listed at the bottom of the main page with list of threads - Crabman, savvy, soolin) to get this moved to the Parking board.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
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

4,285Posts Today

8,152Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Facebook today admitted in parliament that after it heard of my defamation lawsuit against it for 50 fake scam ads?

  • RT @jamiesusskind: After more than 10 years, and with such sadness, I am leaving Labour. I'm doing it for the same reason that I joined: be?

  • RT @Deeangelique_: I suggested @MartinSLewis get 'I Don't Do Ads' tattooed to his forehead yesterday. Today he posted this. I gave Martin L?

  • Follow Martin