PCN court order

[Wave_Rider]

I'm at work at the mo but thought I would quickly send this as just received..

[Wave_Rider]

Am planning of starting on my defence tonight - is it ok to not use legal jargon?? Just clearly and concisely bullet point my defence points? I honestly don't think I can do alt the '''according to blah blah" lingo without potentially stitching myself up!
Also, should I mention that we wouldn't have parked there at all had the gates been in operation or works that be taken as an indirect acknowledgement of knowingly committing an offence (even though we didn't!!)

[ostell]

The parking there 'cause the gates were broken is "frustration of contract", ie you would have complied but events outside you control prevented it.

First is to question the particulars of claim. Does it give sufficient detail to know what they are making the claim for

Question that they have a contract to enforce parking on that road.

Who is that contract with and when was it signd and by whom

Next how was the contract completed with the driver of the car as there are no signs on that road as the driver turns in nor where the car parked. A sign parallel to road and attached to a wall some distance away is insufficient

The original PCN stated that it was for parking without a permit in Ocean 1 whereas the car was on xxxx street.

The photos supplied show a permit so there has been no breach of any contract. (Photos of the signs?)


Are you the person also writing on Pepipoo? If not then someone else got a ticket for the same reason and you look like you are the test case for court. See if you can find that person and get together, 2 heads are better than one. Perhaps a communal notice board?

[Wave_Rider]

Hi! About to post my defense statement for critique....

[Wave_Rider]

I deny all allegations in the particulars of claim of “Breaching the terms of Parking on the land at XXXXX 1 XXXX” as follows:







1. I am a resident of XXXX apartments with an allocated parking space and correlating parking permit which I permanently display; on the eve in question, however, I was unable to park in my space as the electric gates accesssing the car park were out of order. I alerted my Letting Agents to the problem and parked in an area I considered to be safe and legal at the side of our building (along with about 4 other cars, presumably residents also). I had no idea at the time the area was apparently Ocean 1 property, until the next morning when I discovered the PCN (issued at 9pm, see attached pics). Therefore I would firstly Argue there was Frustration of contract in the first instance – had I been able to park in my space I would have!




2. We have never been given any information regarding the status of the side road leading to Ocean 1 car park, no indication that it is privately owned or patrolled by XXXX, and there is no mention of any parking rules governing anywhere beyond those signed at the gateway and inside the car park (see below). On closer inspection following the issue of PCN it appears there is another company (XXXX Parking Services) operating in the lower car park so there seems to be some blurring of boundaries in general – I would therefore question the right of XXXX to even be patrolling in that area?




3. There is no indication that the area in which I parked belongs to XXXX 1 apartments (the road is actually signed Ocean View, both on the road itself and in published maps of the area), and no indication that parking is not permitted on the road – no indication or signage on entry to the road or along it, no road markings to indicate no parking permitted (the road looks for all intents and purposes like a regular public road) and the No Parking signs that there are are invisible from the road and placed in such a way as to indicate they apply only to the three private car parks accessed by the road Ocean View (i.e. attached next to the gates or entrywaysto the individual car parks, See pictures attached). I would therefore deny I was in breach of the terms as there is no clear evidence of them where I parked or nearby




4. lastly, initially the PCN was issued for Unauthorised Parking, which in follow up correspondance was expanded on to mean Parking Without diplaying a permit, alongside pictures of my car clearly displaying my permit, so I would question that Armtrac have any idea what they were actually issuing the PCN for at all?! Pleas find attached screenshots of email extracts of above .

[Wave_Rider]

pictures i wanted to attach....

[Wave_Rider]

[Wave_Rider]

[Wave_Rider]

[Wave_Rider]

[ostell]

Rather too verbose, kkep the statements to the point.

On 3 go straight in and say that the road is Ocean view and there are no visible signs in the area of the parking that could possibly have created a contract for parking, indeed the location on the Parking Charge Notice was Ocean 1 and not Ocean View.

It's late, I'll have another look in the morning.

[Wave_Rider]

Thanks, I'm a waffler that's true! Slightly panicking as I can't log in to mcol now, it's saying can't find user... I know I read that after submitting the AOS I have 28 days from service (5th June) to submit my defense...

[ostell]

Here's what I've got so far. Hopefully others will critique and add to it if required.

What has been missed (or I haven't seen it) is what your lease says about parking. Do you actually have a right to park without having to display a permit or get charged if you don't.

Your photos will be added with your witness statement later in the process.

Have you found that other person also suffering because of the gate?

1. I am xxxxx of xxxx address and am the defendant in this case and litigant in peerson

1. I deny any liability whatsoever to the claimant.

1. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are unclear and do not give a cause for action in this matter. The defendant asks that the court require the claimant to submit a more detailed PoC and if required permits an amended defence at the claimants costs.

1. The Parking charge notice received from the claimant states that the vehicle was for a breach of the parking regulations at Ocean 1. The vehicle was parked at the entrance to a publicly accessible street Ocean View and not at the location they are claiming.

1. The defendant believes that the claimant does not have the authority to take action at this location. The street being accessible to the public is subject to Road Traffic Act Enforcement and therefore no private company can take action.

1. The claimant is put to provide proof that they have a valid contract in place by supplying a copy of that contract without redaction, with a witness statement saying the contract exists being considered insufficient.

1. At the location that the vehicle was parked there are no signs visible and therefore no contract could possibly have been formed with the claimant and therefore there could not have been any breach of any alleged contract.

1. Later inspection showed that there were signs much further down the road, parallel to the road, not visible from the entrance and not readable by any driver until alongside. Almost opposite there were also a sign from another company casting more doubt on the whether the claimant actually has any authority to operate. The claimant's sign gave the impression that the conditions listed were for the car park that was behind the wall that the sign was affixed to.

1. The claimant has claimed in his documentation that the breach was for "Parking without Authorisation" and then later for “Parking without a Permit”.

1. The Particulars of claim does not state what alleged breach they are actually claiming for, one or the other or neither.

1. The address given for the alleged breach was “Ocean 1”. As a resident of “Ocean 1" the defendant does have authorisation to park there and was displaying a permit, a permit that was visible in the photographs that they supplied

1. If it can be shown that a contract was in place then the defendant claims frustration of any such contract in that because of a failure of the gate mechanism on the access to the car park that would normally be used the defendant was unable to park in his normal assigned space.

Statement of truth.

[des8]

Here's what I've got so far. Hopefully others will critique and add to it if required.

What has been missed (or I haven't seen it) is what your lease says about parking. Do you actually have a right to park without having to display a permit or get charged if you don't.

Your photos will be added with your witness statement later in the process.

Have you found that other person also suffering because of the gate?

1. I am xxxxx of xxxx address and am the defendant in this case and litigant in peerson

1. I deny any liability whatsoever to the claimant.

1. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are unclear and do not give a cause for action in this matter. The defendant asks that the court require the claimant to submit a more detailed PoC and if required permits an amended defence at the claimants costs.

1. The Parking charge notice received from the claimant states that the vehicle was for a breach of the parking regulations at Ocean 1. The vehicle was parked at the entrance to a publicly accessible street Ocean View and not at the location they are claiming.

1. The defendant believes that the claimant does not have the authority to take action at this location. The street being accessible to the public is subject to Road Traffic Act Enforcement and therefore no private company can take action.

1. The claimant is put to provide proof that they have a valid contract in place by supplying a copy of that contract without redaction,as a witness statement saying the contract exists being considered insufficient.

1. At the location that the vehicle was parked there are no signs visible and therefore no contract could possibly have been formed with the claimant and therefore there could not have been any breach of any alleged contract.

1. Later inspection showed that there were signs much further down the road, parallel to the road, not visible from the entrance and not readable by any driver until alongside. Almost opposite there was also a sign from another company casting more doubt on the whether the claimant actually has any authority to operate. The claimant's sign gave the impression that the conditions listed were for the car park that was behind the wall that the sign was affixed to.

1. The claimant has claimed in his documentation that the breach was for "Parking without Authorisation" and then later for “Parking without a Permit”.

1. The Particulars of claim does not state what alleged breach they are actually claiming for, one or the other or neither.

1. The address given for the alleged breach was “Ocean 1”. As a resident of “Ocean 1" the defendant does have authorisation to park there and was displaying a permit, a permit that was visible in the photographs that they supplied

1. If it can be shown that a contract was in place then the defendant claims frustration of any such contract in that because of a failure of the gate mechanism on the access to the car park that would normally be used the defendant was unable to park in his normal assigned space.

Statement of truth.

two very minor amendments in red..... but I am a bit pedantic

[ostell]

I'm happy for people to amend. It was only a starting point for the OP. Shame the formatting went all to pot with the copy and paste.