Court Claim received for PCN! Help, please!

[Thecanepari]

BACCBFBF-C396-4628-8EC7-A08D053E1282.jpeg So after listening to some old and clearly awful advice, I ignored the majority of letters following the receipt of a PCN after parking in a church car park to visit an NHS building for a health issue.
After speaking to a friend to works in the legal industry, they recommended asking mundane questions until the company gives up the chase, this hasn't worked but I did receive a reply which could help. I've attached the Letter Before Claim, Claim Form, and signage from the car park.

Please please please help!

[ostell]

So those signs say permit holders only. Their is no offer of parking to non permit holders therefore there is no contract and there can be no breach of the non existent contract.
There is case law on this but I can't remember the details.

Found this in my notes. I haven't checked it out, I leave that to you

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[charitynjw]

So those signs say permit holders only. Their is no offer of parking to non permit holders therefore there is no contract and there can be no breach of the non existent contract.
There is case law on this but I can't remember the details.

Found this in my notes. I haven't checked it out, I leave that to you

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

One of them

[charitynjw]

Another

[charitynjw]

BACCBFBF-C396-4628-8EC7-A08D053E1282.jpeg So after listening to some old and clearly awful advice, I ignored the majority of letters following the receipt of a PCN after parking in a church car park to visit an NHS building for a health issue.
After speaking to a friend to works in the legal industry, they recommended asking mundane questions until the company gives up the chase, this hasn't worked but I did receive a reply which could help. I've attached the Letter Before Claim, Claim Form, and signage from the car park.

Please please please help!

Do you have the postal notice to keeper (original, not the reminder/final notice)
& windscreen notice to driver, if relevant.

What is the date of issue on the court claim form?
Have you acknowledged it? (With the court.)

[Thecanepari]

So those signs say permit holders only. Their is no offer of parking to non permit holders therefore there is no contract and there can be no breach of the non existent contract.
There is case law on this but I can't remember the details.

Found this in my notes. I haven't checked it out, I leave that to you

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

This is extremely helpful! Thank you! I've spoken with the landowner's secretary who says that they'd be happy to reverse it but are unable to after a 3 month period.

[Thecanepari]

Do you have the postal notice to keeper (original, not the reminder/final notice)
& windscreen notice to driver, if relevant.

What is the date of issue on the court claim form?
Have you acknowledged it? (With the court.)

Thanks for your reply - I never received an original notice (but I'm sure they'll argue it was sent to me), and I didn't keep the windscreen notice (shoddy I know!)

[Thecanepari]

This is what I've put together so far! I have zero experience in this field and would love any and all critisisms/suggestions for improvement!





The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

In the case of PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016], identical signage was used, also by 'PCM';
"Those signs say this.
They are headed by Parking Control Management’s logo and they say this: “This site is private land and is managed and operated by PCM (UK) Ltd. Parking conditions apply.”
Those parking conditions are stated to be as follows:
“No parking on this roadway at any time. No parking either wholly or partially on paved, landscaped or access areas at any time. Enforcement in operation 24 hours.”
Then in slightly smaller type underneath those one would have thought fairly clear words are these words:
“By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you, the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms.”
There is a box saying “Parking charge notice” and it says:
“You agree to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of Ł100 to be paid within 28 days of issue. This is reduced to Ł60 if paid within 14 days. You will be liable for additional parking charges for each and any subsequent 24-hour period or part thereof that the vehicle remains or if it returns at any time.”
Then there are other bits which I am not going to mention, but I will mention this other note:
“Failure to pay this charge may result in the vehicle keeper’s details being requested from the DVLA. Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which the driver will be responsible.”"

District Judge Glen discusses the wording of these signs and questions the consideration of each party. Then it is stated that if the signage was demanding the right to change a sum of money for parking in this way, it would be an effort to claim damages for trespassing and not a breach of contract.
“This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

"Looking at the signage and the wording used by UKPC, attempts have been made to overrule the core purpose of the enforcement; “Authorised vehicles only”. In the case of UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016], this is also addressed.
“I am not able to consider that that is an open offer to contract to park at first sight. If anything, it prohibits unauthorised parking on my reading of it. If I am wrong in that then I have to consider whether the inclusion of the wording, “Terms of parking apply at all times”, in any way invalidates my view that the signage seeks to prohibit unauthorised parking. 7. I do not find that, “Terms of parking apply at all times”, in any way invalidates my interpretation of the sign because there are terms which apply to those who are authorised to park. Those who are authorised to park in a situation in which it is common ground that there is a system for parking permits in operation must be those who are issued with parking permits to whom further terms and conditions apply. Reading on in the notice, those terms include that all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays, that a valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times, no parking on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings and no road way parking. 8. So for those reasons, I am unable to accept that the particular circumstances of this case reveal a contractual licence to park with a contract between the parking manager, in this case UKPC, in the Supreme Court authority ParkingEye, and the vehicle owner or driver, in this case the defendant, and in the Supreme Court authority, Mr Beavis.”"

[charitynjw]

This gives you an idea of the format (it's for a Consumer Credit defence, so references to the Consumer Credit Act aren't so applicable)
If you submit your defence online (MCOL) you won't need the header or the Statement of Truth.

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-court-claims/

[Thecanepari]

This gives you an idea of the format (it's for a Consumer Credit defence, so references to the Consumer Credit Act aren't so applicable)
If you submit your defence online (MCOL) you won't need the header or the Statement of Truth.

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-court-claims/

Thank you so much for your help thus far. I've attached a revision of the defence based on your previous reply - I must stress this is all very scary and new to me so your help is hugely appreciated.

[charitynjw]

Let's take a step back for the moment.

Have you acknowledged the court claim? (With the court)

What is the date of issue of the court claim?

[Thecanepari]

This gives you an idea of the format (it's for a Consumer Credit defence, so references to the Consumer Credit Act aren't so applicable)
If you submit your defence online (MCOL) you won't need the header or the Statement of Truth.

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-court-claims/

I have acknowledged the court claim (date of issue 8th April), within 14 days (excl. bank holidays: Easter Sunday and Monday).
From my understanding that gives me 28 days after date of issue to submit a defence?

[Thecanepari]

Let's take a step back for the moment.

Have you acknowledged the court claim? (With the court)

What is the date of issue of the court claim?

I have acknowledged the court claim (date of issue 8th April), within 14 days (excl. bank holidays: Easter Sunday and Monday).
From my understanding that gives me 28 days after date of issue to submit a defence?

[charitynjw]

I have acknowledged the court claim (date of issue 8th April), within 14 days (excl. bank holidays: Easter Sunday and Monday).
From my understanding that gives me 28 days after date of issue to submit a defence?

Actually it's 33 days from date of issue.
5 days are allowed for service (delivery) of the claim.
If the 33rd day falls on a weekend or Bank Hol, the next working day is ok. (4pm latest)

[ostell]

I have acknowledged the court claim (date of issue 8th April), within 14 days (excl. bank holidays: Easter Sunday and Monday).

The 14 days is calendar days, no exclusions except if the 14 days fell within the weekend and you acked on the Tuesday