court action advice needed please :-) |
court action advice needed please :-) |
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 21:13
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 23 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,741 |
Hi all, this is my first post.
if a parking company who is a member of the IPC took court action over an unpaid PCN, with evidence of who the driver is, would there be other grounds to build up a good defence against the PCN? or is it a lost cause? Many thanks in advance :-) |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 21:13
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:15
Post
#141
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Well you point out in your defence that they have lied by sending a different sign to the one in the actual car park...
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 17:00
Post
#142
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 23 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,741 |
6.The Claimant is likely to assert that ParkingEye v Beavis applies to disengage the charge as a penalty. The Defendant denies that the Claimant can rely on the decision as none of its conditions has been met.
(a) The Court of Appeal stated that the penalty could never be disengaged for a pay car park. The Supreme Court did not dispute this point and it therefore stands. (b) The signs must be clear. In the present case they were not and the Defendant refers the Court to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule that the charge should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' © The Claimant must be in compliance with its Code of Practice. The Claimant is in breach of at least two of its terms in this part should I also state that the claimant said that the case was a direct result of comments made online by a 3rd party? thanks |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 07:31
Post
#143
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No, that isnt related to it being a penalty, but htat the aciton was vexatious, as it has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the original charge, but the Cs hurt feelings.
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 20:29
Post
#144
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 23 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,741 |
No, that isnt related to it being a penalty, but htat the aciton was vexatious, as it has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the original charge, but the Cs hurt feelings. should this be part of the defence? or later on in a witness statement? ive altered paragraph 3. to include what they originally stated, and then the contradicting answers afterwards, is this ok or would you suggest something else? 3. The Claimant has made contradictions as to why it believes the Driver was in breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The Claimant has stated that there was no ticket present whatsoever. The Defendant has asked the Claimant to explain whether "not displaying a valid ticket for inspection" means that the parking period was unpaid, the paid for time was exceeded or a parking ticket might have been paid for but was not visible. The Claimant in reply has stated that it is making no assumptions; the photos of the vehicle dashboard are not visible because of the poor lighting. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not even know why it has issued the claim and submits that the Court should not be used an oracle to define a cause of action. also the parking company are no longer operating on the land, its about to be sold by the current landowner. probably has no relevance but thought id mention it here This post has been edited by eggybread1922: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 20:35 |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 20:52
Post
#145
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
should this be part of the defence? or later on in a witness statement?
ive altered paragraph 3. to include what they originally stated, and then the contradicting answers afterwards, is this ok or would you suggest something else? 3. The Claimant has made contradictions as to why it believes the Driver was in breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The Claimant has stated that there was no ticket present whatsoever. The Defendant has asked the Claimant to explain whether "not displaying a valid ticket for inspection" means that the parking period was unpaid, the paid for time was exceeded or a parking ticket might have been paid for but was not visible. The Claimant in reply has stated that it is making no assumptions; the photos of the vehicle dashboard are not visible because of the poor lighting. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not even know why it has issued the claim and submits that the Court should not be used as an oracle to This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 20:52 |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 21:09
Post
#146
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
QUOTE Court should not be used as an oracle to Should that read 'devine' as in the French for 'to guess'? Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of 'divine' (= God-like) ? |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 21:20
Post
#147
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Not according to the dictionaries I checked - I had the same concern
You also go dowsing for water with a divining rod This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 21:21 |
|
|
Tue, 8 May 2018 - 16:45
Post
#148
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 23 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,741 |
Hi all, mt defence has been sent via email, do i also need to send a copy to the parking company?
|
|
|
Tue, 8 May 2018 - 16:55
Post
#149
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
deleted
This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Tue, 8 May 2018 - 16:56 |
|
|
Wed, 9 May 2018 - 07:34
Post
#150
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No. CCBC sends it to the C
This si the ONLY time they do that, however - as youwill see, from reading carefully every form after, it will tel you to send to ALL parties ie court and claimant. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:04 |