Court Claim received for PCN! Help, please!

[charitynjw]

The signage is at the location which is a long way from me, I am unable to check. My assumption is that it is correct and wish to proceed on that basis.
Could you provide some reviews on my previous defence document as I'd like to submit it soon and feel that it could be improved.
Thank you for all your time!
JC

Hi

At first blush, I feel that it would be a mistake to rely solely on a defence which concentrates only on defective signage.
Have you compared 'your' sign with the ones in Bull & others?
Imho it is markedly different, & if the judge disagrees with you, you will have no other limbs of argument to fall back on. (It's often referred to as the 'Judges' Lottery'....you never know how amenable he/she will be until you are sitting in front of him/her....by which time it is too late to introduce new limbs of defence.)
I would suggest that you once again request disclosure of evidence from the solicitor.
You can then add to your defence the fact that you have asked & it is pending.
& that will protect your legal position, as you are quite within your rights to request disclosure.
A CPR 31.14 request would make it official.

[Thecanepari]

Hi

At first blush, I feel that it would be a mistake to rely solely on a defence which concentrates only on defective signage.
Have you compared 'your' sign with the ones in Bull & others?
Imho it is markedly different, & if the judge disagrees with you, you will have no other limbs of argument to fall back on. (It's often referred to as the 'Judges' Lottery'....you never know how amenable he/she will be until you are sitting in front of him/her....by which time it is too late to introduce new limbs of defence.)
I would suggest that you once again request disclosure of evidence from the solicitor.
You can then add to your defence the fact that you have asked & it is pending.
& that will protect your legal position, as you are quite within your rights to request disclosure.
A CPR 31.14 request would make it official.

I don't know if this is what you mean? It was provided when I was buying time with them.
I need to submit my defence tomorrow at the abosolute latest - you're right that the judges lottery is not a game I'm wanting to play! Hope this gives you some material to work with.

I've spoken to the people who run the church that I'm being pursued from and they've said they'd reverse the charge if possible - but as it's been over a year they're unable to. It's highly frustrating

Thank you! ******

[charitynjw]

Ok

You will note that the notice to keeper does not specify an actual period time for the alleged contravention.
It does bang on about a "period immediately preceeding.....". I'm not sure whether the validity of that rather obtuse language has been tested in court.

However

15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land

https://theipc.info/downloads

It occurs to me that they can't prove how long the vehicle was actually parked.
Grace periods may well be your .....saving grace?

[Thecanepari]

Ok

You will note that the notice to keeper does not specify an actual period time for the alleged contravention.
It does bang on about a "period immediately preceeding.....". I'm not sure whether the validity of that rather obtuse language has been tested in court.

However


https://theipc.info/downloads

It occurs to me that they can't prove how long the vehicle was actually parked.
Grace periods may well be your .....saving grace?

That's genius! Okay I'll put together another document and send that over now!
Thank you so much,
JC.

[Thecanepari]

Ok

You will note that the notice to keeper does not specify an actual period time for the alleged contravention.
It does bang on about a "period immediately preceeding.....". I'm not sure whether the validity of that rather obtuse language has been tested in court.

However


https://theipc.info/downloads

It occurs to me that they can't prove how long the vehicle was actually parked.
Grace periods may well be your .....saving grace?

Thoughts?

1. The Defendant received the claim F7GF56M6 from the Northampton County Court issued 8th April 2019.
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. 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 UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016];
“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.
Taken from the transcript of PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016];
“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.

15. In the notice to keeper, no time period is specified for the alleged contravention. The term 'period immediately preceding’ is used; the obtuse nature of this language leaves ambiguity to those parking.
In section 15 of the IPC code of conduct, a grace period of 10 minutes should be given unless clearly stated otherwise by the signage. The evidence provided does not show the vehicle being parked for 10 minutes or longer. The times that the vehicle was viewed in evidence was from 10:06:45 to 10:07:36.
“15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.”
16. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
17. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.
17. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.
18.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.
Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

[charitynjw]

Lol!
Paragraph numbering needs tweaking a tad.

[Thecanepari]

Lol!
Paragraph numbering needs tweaking a tad.

Oh God, it's autochanged it due to the IPC quote! Bear with!

[Thecanepari]

Lol!
Paragraph numbering needs tweaking a tad.

1. The Defendant received the claim F7GF56M6 from the Northampton County Court issued 8th April 2019.
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. 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 UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016];

“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.
Taken from the transcript of PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016];
“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."

4. In the notice to keeper, no time period is specified for the alleged contravention. The term 'period immediately preceding’ is used; the obtuse nature of this language leaves ambiguity to those parking.
In section 15 of the IPC code of conduct, a grace period of 10 minutes should be given unless clearly stated otherwise by the signage. The evidence provided does not show the vehicle being parked for 10 minutes or longer. The times that the vehicle was viewed in evidence was from 10:06:45 to 10:07:36.

“15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.”

5. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
6. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.
7. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.
18.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.
Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

[charitynjw]

Err.....it goes from 7 to 18.
But we're getting there!

[charitynjw]

Ps
On the notice to keeper it states the location as the United Reform Church.
(Don't worry that the court claim form is more specific....it's the NtK that counts)

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

But

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eformed_Church

[Thecanepari]

Ps
On the notice to keeper it states the location as the United Reform Church.
(Don't worry that the court claim form is more specific....it's the NtK that counts)



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

But

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eformed_Church

So, upon revision, this is what I'll submit this evening (9pm GMT) provided you're not against it! (As per, thank you!!!) Please ignore the formatting of (9)(1), it's the website!

1. The Defendant received the claim F7GF56M6 from the Northampton County Court issued 8th April 2019.

2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3. 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 UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016];

“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.”

Taken from the transcript of PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016];

“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."

4. In the notice to keeper, no time period is specified for the alleged contravention. The term 'period immediately preceding’ is used; the obtuse nature of this language leaves ambiguity to those parking.

In section 15 of the IPC code of conduct, a grace period of 10 minutes should be given unless clearly stated otherwise by the signage. The evidence provided does not show the vehicle being parked for 10 minutes or longer. The times that the vehicle was viewed in evidence was from 10:06:45 to 10:07:36.

15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.

15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.

5. In the Notice to Keeper, the location at which the contravention is claimed to have taken place is specified as ‘United Reform Church’. However, this is not specific to the location and could be any one of the United Reform Churches in England. In section 56 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4, Recovery of Unpaid Parking), point 9(2)(a), it is a requirement that the Notice to Keeper specifies the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. 9
(1)a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

9(2) the notice must—

(a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

6. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

7. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

8. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

9. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.



Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

[charitynjw]

I guess by now you've filed the defence.
No problem if you have...it's fine.
The first bit (signage) was always a bit of a gamble; always is in any defence, as it relies on the judge's interpretation.
Transcripts from other county court cases can be persuasive, of course, but you just don't know how the judge will react until you are in the hearing.
But the second bit (location) should be watertight.
Legislation stipulates that the location must be identified.
They haven't.
End of!

[Thecanepari]

I guess by now you've filed the defence.
No problem if you have...it's fine.
The first bit (signage) was always a bit of a gamble; always is in any defence, as it relies on the judge's interpretation.
Transcripts from other county court cases can be persuasive, of course, but you just don't know how the judge will react until you are in the hearing.
But the second bit (location) should be watertight.
Legislation stipulates that the location must be identified.
They haven't.
End of!

So they've come back with this email - direct from claimant. Not sure what to make of it or do with the information?!

As always, you've been such great help I couldn't thank you more!

[ostell]

You fill in your copy of the directions questionnaire and send to the court and their solicitor. In addition you object to the paper hearing. Edit to suit::

(Claim number): (****** v ******)
Response to N159 : Claimant’s request for special direction

The Defendant has been informed that the Claimant has proposed a hearing on the papers because it considers the matter to be relatively straightforward.
He has also been informed that the Claimant requests to transfer the hearing to the Claimant’s local court if the Defendant does not consent.

The Defendant objects strongly to both proposals and denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.

Issues in dispute include :

1 The Claimant’s failure to disclose any details or cause of action
2 The Claimant’s authority to *********
3 The Claimant’s failure to **********
4 The inadequate signage at the location
5 The Defendant’s denial that any contract has ever existed with the Claimant
6 The Claimant’s addition of Indemnity Costs

The Defendant will therefore wish to question the Claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.

The Defendant, as a litigant in person would be seriously disadvantaged against the Claimant, a parking company that has employed its Trade Association solicitor to prepare its documents.
The Defendant respectfully reminds the Court that the Claimant has ignored a request, in response to its Letter Before Claim, to provide a copy of ******.

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant may attempt to introduce documents and arguments that he will not have the opportunity to dispute.

He therefore requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the Defendant’s local court in accordance with the Practice Direction when the Defendant is an individual.

[Thecanepari]

You fill in your copy of the directions questionnaire and send to the court and their solicitor. In addition you object to the paper hearing. Edit to suit::

(Claim number): (****** v ******)
Response to N159 : Claimant’s request for special direction

The Defendant has been informed that the Claimant has proposed a hearing on the papers because it considers the matter to be relatively straightforward.
He has also been informed that the Claimant requests to transfer the hearing to the Claimant’s local court if the Defendant does not consent.

The Defendant objects strongly to both proposals and denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.

Issues in dispute include :

1 The Claimant’s failure to disclose any details or cause of action
2 The Claimant’s authority to *********
3 The Claimant’s failure to **********
4 The inadequate signage at the location
5 The Defendant’s denial that any contract has ever existed with the Claimant
6 The Claimant’s addition of Indemnity Costs

The Defendant will therefore wish to question the Claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.

The Defendant, as a litigant in person would be seriously disadvantaged against the Claimant, a parking company that has employed its Trade Association solicitor to prepare its documents.
The Defendant respectfully reminds the Court that the Claimant has ignored a request, in response to its Letter Before Claim, to provide a copy of ******.

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant may attempt to introduce documents and arguments that he will not have the opportunity to dispute.

He therefore requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the Defendant’s local court in accordance with the Practice Direction when the Defendant is an individual.

That's a really helpful draft, I've provided my completed version below. I can respond to the Claimant's solcitor's email, but don't know where to submit it to the court? Same place as I submitted the defence online?


(*****): (UK Car Park Management LTD v Mr J** ***)
Response to N159 : Claimant’s request for special direction

The Defendant has been informed that the Claimant has proposed a hearing on the papers because it considers the matter to be relatively straightforward.
He has also been informed that the Claimant requests to transfer the hearing to the Claimant’s local court if the Defendant does not consent.

The Defendant objects strongly to both proposals and denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.

Issues in dispute include :

1 The Claimant’s failure to specify the location of the alleged contravention
2 The Claimant’s failure to show time period of alleged contravention
3 The inadequate signage at the location
4 The Defendant’s denial that any contract has ever existed with the Claimant
5 The Claimant’s addition of Indemnity Costs

The Defendant will therefore wish to question the Claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.

The Defendant, as a litigant in person would be seriously disadvantaged against the Claimant, a parking company that has employed its Trade Association solicitor to prepare its documents.

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant may attempt to introduce documents and arguments that he will not have the opportunity to dispute.

He therefore requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the Defendant’s local court in accordance with the Practice Direction when the Defendant is an individual.