OPS/gladstone PCN PAPLOC now claimform - <10mins CCTV passenger leaving car - Broadwater Street West, Worthing

[FTMDave]

The CPR request is only if they sue you, but you haven't been sent anything by a court (is this right?)

 

You do need to reply to the LBA though.  Just say that they know you were well within the grace period but if they want to get a good kicking in court to go ahead where you will go for full costs under  CPR 27.14(2)(g).  Make them know they've been sussed and you're not scared of their threats.

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, RageAgainstThePCN said:

looked through the defence options here but not sure which to use? Any advice welcome!

 

Just pick out the points that seem relevant to your case.  A defence just needs to be some short bullet points.

 

-  You don't believe the company have the authority to bring court claims in their own name for the site (only include this if they don't reply to your CPR request, which needs to be done today)

- You don't believe they have planning permission for their signage which is illegal and therefore you couldn't enter into a contract with them (ditto CPR request, and it would be good if you looked up the planning permission or lack of)

- Your presence was well within the 10-minute industry accepted grace period

- Etc.

[FTMDave]

BTW, is all the POPLA stuff about your passenger buying coffee actually true?

 

I ask, not because it's important in itself, there's nothing wrong with your passenger grabbing a quick coffee while you read their signs within the grace period and decide whether to park there or not.

 

It's rather not to later state in your WS or in court things that the other side can show to be untrue.  Many a case has been lost by the PPCs because a part of their evidence contained porkies and so the judge decided that overall their evidence was unreliable.  It's essential not to fall into the same trap.

[FTMDave]

It's just par for the course, doesn't mean anything, they will have to disclose at WS stage.

[FTMDave]

I hope you get DDJ Harvey!

[FTMDave]

What you've written in itself is fine but in needs to be split up into comprehensible sections, such as

   - grace period & CoP (IMO at the top as this is one of your most important points)

   - it wasn't a parking event

   - they have no locus standi

   - POFA (but IIRC you outed yourself as the driver, right?  If so drop this section)

   - no planning permission so illegal contract

   - £60 unicorn food tax.

 

Etc.

[FTMDave]

Sorry RATPCN, my bad, you've not mentioned POFA in your WS so you don't need to change anything.

 

I was just making the general point that it would be better to order the WS into sections each of which deal with different points of law, it would be easier for the judge to see the legal arguments you're making.

 

BTW, your paragraphs 4 & 7 are duplicates.

 

Yes, it might be worth sticking in a quick introduction describing what happened, then you briefly entered the site but never parked and left well within the grace period.

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

Well done with the WS.  It's straight to the point and succinct (which will go down well with the judge) unlike the pages & pages of tripe that OPS will send (if they actually do get off their backsides and send something).  A few small suggestions ...

 

I would move current paragraph 9 to fit in after paragraph 6, and touch the paragraphs up so they read coherently.  It seems to me that current paragraph 9 belongs in that part which is dealing with the "no parking event" argument.

 

In paragraph 6 you mention the driver leaving the car for under five seconds.  Does this show up in the POPLA appeal or their images?  If so, OK, but it could undermine the "no parking" argument and if it could be left out it would be better.

 

In paragraph 11 draw the conclusion at the end.  "Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and makes it impossible for the defendant to have entered into a contract with the claimant".  

[FTMDave]

Well therefore how about

 

It is denied that the Defendant parked on site without pre-authorization at XXXXXXXXXXXX at the times mentioned in Exhibit 5. This was not a parking event. Photographic evidence Exhibit 6 confirms the Defendant was turning around and did not leave the vehicle for more than 5 seconds and simply to move an object from the front seat to the rear seat with the engine running, which clearly would not have been enough time to read the terms and conditions of a “parking contract” therefore no contract was instigated under BPA Code 30.1.7.

 

I'm probably going OTT but hey, in my job I always say it's better to prepare too much than too little, better that the surprises are good ones rather than bad ones!  It just crossed my mind that OPS could use this "leaving the vehicle" against you.  They're almost certainly too stupid to realise but hey ...

 

If no-one has any other alterations to suggest, get the WS off tomorrow.

 

LiP is "Litigant in Person", i.e. not a company or someone represented by a solicitor, and if you make tiny mistakes in the procedure the judge is supposed to allow you leeway.

Edited November 24, 2020 by FTMDave
Usual typo!

[FTMDave]

I don't think it makes much odds now.

 

The tactic of waiting for OPS' WS was so you could counter their lies in your own WS.  But as you've sent your WS to the court that's it, the WS is finished.  You might as well send yours to OPS now. 

 

If OPS mess you around by not providing their WS they are digging their own grave!

[FTMDave]

DDJHarveyfan@

 

ThrashedagaininLewes@