PCM PARKING SIGN PUT UP WHILE WE WERE PARKED and then ticketed us. - Now a Court Case

[ostell]

They know you are the registered keeper, they got your details from the DVLA, but they do not know who was driving, and you are not required to tell them. That why their Particulars Of claim is bad, they don't specify who they are claiming against, the defence would be different for each. That's why the PoC are embarassing (I remembered the word at last!!).

[Jocima]

Have you contacted the council again to see about the status of that road?

Yes, CAMDEN don't give the information over the phone and if I need it I need to pay £38.45 for it I was told.

[ostell]

Most councils have the information on line. You could use a FOI request.

[Jocima]

They know you are the registered keeper, they got your details from the DVLA,).

Ostell, I can't find the Notice to Keeper. But in case they have sent us and it was lost (my docs are a big mess at the moment), let's consider this would be the case, how should I approach it? I don't want to say I didn't receive it in case I have lost it... the judge might punish me for it. Not?

[Jocima]

Hi
DEFENSE letter attached. All and any input appreciated. It should reach them Friday.
Thank you!!

Introduction
1. I am xxxxxxxxx , the defendant in this matter. My address for service is xxxxxxxxx.……
2. I am the registered keeper for the car plate xxxxx.

3. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

4. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at FREIGHT LANE ON 13/01/2017.

Purported Basis of Claim

6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the defendant and the claimant on before parking
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site that meet the test laid down in ParkingEye v Beavis
d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional but unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International ParkingCommunity Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
f. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.

Rebuttal of Claim

7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional but unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
f. That the defendant is liable for the purported debt.

8. It is further denied that the defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.

10. I request that the court orders the claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the case should stand struck out.

In the event that the relevant documents are received from the claimants I will be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the claimants bear the costs of the amendment.



My Defence

My defence will rely principally upon the following points:

11. The Particulars of the Claim submitted to the Defendant provide no statement to the nature of the claim and the Defendant does not believe these particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a comprehensive and conclusive defence statement.


12. That the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. It is understood from the driver that the signs which were not in place previously were installed during the day after the car was parked. There can be no liability as no contract was formed on parking. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

13. The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from‘breaching the terms of parking on the land’. Signage displayed on ADDRESS are forbidding signs that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract.

14. 16. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith. Para 205:

“The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.


17. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under.The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

18. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs before car parking started, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above.

19. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

20. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

21. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £120 or £60 if paid within 14 days.

22. In the alternative, the attention of the court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper(in lieu of the driver), where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c; 8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).

23. The company have failed to show that they have any authority to operate on that land. A report TITLED ACQUISITION OF LAND IN FREIGHT LAND E AND 7 YORK WAY N1 (FIN/2015/08), from 21/01/15, discuss the Acquisition of Land by Camden.

24. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.

25. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

[ostell]

13) remove the residential parking spaces bits. lets not confuse the issue.

12) add it would would be perverse to claim that a contract for parking was formed when that action was specifically barred.

14etc there is a failure of the sequence numbers

THere are also sections where particular details need to be filled in. A general careful proof read. make the fact that there were no signs in place at the start of parking one of the earlier items.

[Jocima]

Hello,
Just an update on this matter.
The defense was sent and this reply arrived.

Let you know the outcome.

[ostell]

You object to the proposal. Here's one response I found on the Pepipoo forums:

I object strongly to this proposal.

I deny the claimant's assertion that the matter is relatively straightforward.

The issues in dispute include the Claimant's defective Particulars of Claim, and its failure to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the Defendant,

As a litigant in person, I would be seriously disadvantaged against the Claimant, a parking company that has employed its trade association's solicitor to prepare its documents.

I would also wish to question the Claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.


I therefore requests that the matter is transferred to xxxxxx County Court Hearing Centre in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules where the Defendant is a consumer

You can search on pepipoo, Use the search box at the bottom left and search for "relatively straightforward" Modify to suit your case

[Jocima]

FINAL OUTCOME OF THIS MATTER:

The company lost and was told to pay us the cost of £150 for the working hours lost on the day of the court.

THANK YOU!!!!

[ostell]

Good news!!! Have you got the actual judgment, ie what did the judge say ?