G24 PCN from 2019 court case

[squirrelkiwi]

I need help please to formulate a defence against G24/DCB Legal.

How do I upload the information you'll need to see to help me? Apologies, I'm not very good with technology.

[squirrelkiwi]

Ive attempted to upload relevant images

[squirrelkiwi]

I asked for a copy of the PCN through a SAR request. They also sent a copy of their ANPR computer record....do you need to see this?

[des8]

What was the date of issue of the court claim and have you acknowledged it?

When the keeper informed G24 you were the driver, did he give them your correct name and address?
Presumably there was a PCN attached to windscreen, which you gave to the keeper, who immediately informed G24 of your details.
Tell him/her not to be so quick in future as it is easier to defend as keeper rather than as driver.
I'm amazed that from an incident late on 21.10 G24 were able to issue a charge notice to you on 23.10

Have you sent a CPR31.14 to DCB Legal?

ANPR computer records might be useful, so don't dispose of them yet!

[squirrelkiwi]

Court claim is 20 June, and yes I have acknowledged it.

I am the registered keeper.

No PCN on windscreen, it was sent through the post.

Not sent SAR to DCB legal.

The car in question was sold in 2020. At the time, the V5 had my correct name and address, but after the sale I had a change of name and address. I presume DCB Legal used a tracing agency to find me after such a long period.

I sent both G24 & DCB Legal an email requesting my previous address be removed from their records.

[squirrelkiwi]

Just to add that the ANPR record shows an appeal was logged on 29/10/19 by the registered keeper. It doesn't mention any driver details.

[des8]

So just to get this right!
The car was in St Swithins on 21.oct
On 23 Oct G24 sent a parking charge to you stating you had been nominated as the driver by the keeper
However you were the keeper and had not been in communication with them at all
So they were confused!
You then unfortunately appealed as the Keeper against the charge being made against the driver, altho' there had been no notice to keeper

Do you have a copy of your appeal?
If it is in the records sent you perhaps you should post up everything you have

You need to send a CPR31.14 (template in SHORTCUTS panel on right needs amending for your situation) request to DCBLegal.
In particular you want i)a copy of the signage at the time with every single word legible
ii)a copy of the contract authorising G24 to manage parking at the yard, to issue parking charge notices and to collect those charges via court action
iii)copy of the PCN(s)

[squirrelkiwi]

Yes, your summary of the situation is correct.

On the SAR response from G24 they state "Appeal Response - G24 no longer hold a copy of this, communication history attached". I will upload the computer data when I locate it.

Also, this is the same computer history which time stamped the arrival and departure of the vehicle, which I assume was a type of ANPR camera, and records the stay in the car park as 0.38 seconds?

I will send a request to DCBL Legal for the information you have suggested.

In the meantime should I be formulating a defence in case DCBL Legal don't respond before my defence deadline expires?

[squirrelkiwi]

[squirrelkiwi]

The additional images referred to in the computer record is the front and rear of the vehicle. I can upload those too if you think they are relevant to the case.

[des8]

All you need to do for now is send the CPR31.14 request to DCB Legal and await their response which you should receive within 14 days.

The deadline for filing and serving your defence is 23rdJuly.

If you give this thread a nudge when you receive a response from DCBL (or around 17th July if nothing) we can help you draft your defence then

[squirrelkiwi]

Aside from an automated email acknowledgement I haven't had a response from DCBL Legal about the CPR 31.14 request.

I don't know if that's good or bad in relation to my defence?

Help drafting an appropriate defence would be greatly appreciated as the deadline is only a week away.

Thank you

[des8]

I'll draft something up in the next couple of days

[squirrelkiwi]

Thank you!

[des8]

Suggested defence for you to use, modify or discard as you wish.
If you use it you will need to renumber the paragraphs.
Don't just copy and paste ... you must read it and ensure it is correct.
It is your defence and you have to sign a statement of truth.
You will have to send it as an attachment to an email Court address:ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
In subject line insert the "case number" "G24 v your name" "Defence"

DEFENCE

1. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
   
   i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
   
   ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.
   iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim

INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

CLAIMANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. entered into a contract with the Claimant and was issued PC(s)but does not enumerate how many
   2. is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
   3. is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:

1. 1. make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or

1. 1. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and

1. 1. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

RELEVANT FACTS




1. On the date in question, the driver was recorded stopped for a total of 12 seconds
2. The on-site signage states "AUTHORISED PARKING ONLY". If the parking is not authorised the responsible person would be trespassing.There is no offer for a non-permit holder to park there and it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case.
3A Parking Charge Notice was issued stating the registered keeper had informed the Claimant that the Defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged infringement. This was a false statement.
The Defendant is the registered keeper and had had no interaction with the Claimant at that time. No Notice to Keeper has been issued.
APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. Despite the Defendant requesting proof from the Claimant of the allegation, the Claimant has so far failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant’s allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition in which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
2. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator member of the IPC and as such has to allow a consideration period of 5 minutes for drivers to read and agree to the terms of parking.
3. The car was recorded only for 12 seconds. The Claimant is put to show the vehicle was present for longer.
4. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, a request was made by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012
5. Despite the request as referred to in paragraph 2, the Claimant has refused or otherwise failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant’s authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
6. In the absence of the such evidence, it is the Defendant’s contention – and the court is invited to make an inference that – the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
7. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that there was no offer nor contract to park
8. Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge
9. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim the recovery of its costs in respect of the Parking Charge. As described above, there was no contract to park
10. 3. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
    4. In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))
    
    LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER
    
    1. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle.
11. 2. The Defendant repeats that if the driver was not authorised to park at St Swithins Yard, there could not have been a contract to park.
    If there was no contract, there could be no charge.
12. 3.The Claimant has failed to comply with the conditions required by POFA 2012 to transfer liability for any unpaid charge from driver to registered keeper.
13. The Parking Charge notice is address to the Defendant as the driver and is not a Notice to Keeper
14. 3.Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
    1. Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. The Claimant has failed to supply:
       1. a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver; and
       2. what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the recovery of the Parking Charge.
    2. Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only. The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:
15. … The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
    
    Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge
16. To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
    1. The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the alleged parking contract. It is well established under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper; and
    2. the Notice to keeper did not state the period of parking as mandated by Pofa 2012 schedule 4 para 9 (2) (a) and so liability for any unpaid charges cannot be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper
    3. paragraph 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. The unpaid parking charges specified in the notice were £100.
17. It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.
18. CONCLUSION
19. By reason of the Defendant’s non-compliance with the POFA requirements as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge.

Therefore the claimant is not entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth