Hi Guys

Hoping the Pepipoo family can help

So a driver parked their work van opposite their driveway on a parking bay which they have been doing for years - however to their surprise his work has notified them of a PCN they received and that they have to pay a fine (as attached)

Normally the driver would ignore a PCN but as its a work vehicle he can't really ignore and hence on here for help please :-)

Since receiving the PCN, the driver has found out that the housing association have recently asked ES Parking Enforcement to start ticketing vehicles who don't have a permit - (the driver has never had a permit as never needed one in the past and has parked in the bays for years with no issues)

Attached is the PCN the driver has received - however the driver has taken photos of the sign (as attached) and the leafs are covering the sign - surely that is scope for the company to rescind the fine as the notice is not clearly signposted (see the PCN photos and see the photo attached) - also attached is a photo of the sign from another location just for information purposes

Therefore can any kind soul help the driver out and advise what best course of action he can take - the driver has until 8th August before the fine turns into £100 from £60 so any help will be really appreciated

Kind Regards

Timmi

This post has been edited by timmi13: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 12:04

Thanks for that

I have completed the Acknowledgment of Service

I apologise in advance but what do I do next?

Tried to read through the newbies thread on MSE but to no avail - I am assuming I have to build a defence but I don't have the foggiest Im afraid

Also the court is in Northampton and I live in Preston - not sure if that is important to mention at this stage

Thanks as always

You haven't been reading about court procedure, the court will have to one of your choice later in the process.

Your defence is all the reasons why you are not liable, just in a numbered paragraph format

Post 2 in the newbeis thread ha smultiple defences for you to read through. This is not a five minute skim read job, this is you sitting down and taking th etime to read it. With someone if thats what it takes
There is a newer template defence over there to find as well, i dont think it has been integrated into the newbies thread yet

You cannot just hope it is all there ready for you. A lot of it is, such as court procedure, but THIS TAKES WORK.

Thanks for the advice but Im still none the wiser what I need to write for the defence

I have tried to locate post 2 in that newbies thread but cannot locate it

Any help is appreciated

Thanks

LIke this forum, posts are split up. The 2nd post in that thread is post 2.

There are 16 defences there - have you found NONE of them?

the draft defence

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...lse-admin-costs

Its the second post down the thread!

Thanks for that...I've been looking at the wrong forum

I will now read up accordingly

Hi All

Im not very good at this so apologies in advance

I have used the 'defence by bargepole, showing that a defence about unclear signs should be written concisely' - as the basis of my defence - I have omitted what I feel are the unnecessary sentences - I have included about one about forbidden signs - please can you kindly advise how this looks at a first attempt as my defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
7. The signage in the car park is also 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.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

2) you are the keeper surely

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

Am i not the defendant??

Alternatively what shall i write?

Thanks

Your company are the registered keeper, you are the keeper.

Ok understood - please can you advise how best I should write that - eg:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Company is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

Please can you also confirm the points seem correct or does anything need changing?

Thanks so kindly

You're over thinking it.... you just had to remove 'registered'

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

Sorry lol - many thanks for that

Do points 1 and 3-10 read ok given the history of my case?

Thanks

Hi any advice re my last post

Thanks

Hi all - Sorry to keep bothering

Is the below good to send?

Thanks

----------------------------

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Company is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
7. The signage in the car park is also 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.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

You haven't updated 2.

We've established that the NtK was insufficient to hold the keeper liable as it was PoFA non compliant, you've not used that at all.

'The NtK served on the registered keeper was non compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, as such ES parking have no course of action against the keeper but instead can only make a clam on the driver.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

Sorry yes should have read as above

Please can you explain what NtK means or shall I just add that sentence as another point as you have wrote it?

Thanks

NTK = Notice To Keeper

FINAL DRAFT - please confirm if any mistakes and if not if good to send:



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
7. The signage in the car park is also 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.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. The Notice to Keeper served on the registered keeper was non compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, as such ES parking have no course of action against the keeper but instead can only make a clam on the driver.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date