Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi thanks for the advice.  could I use this?  if so what should i put in the areas of bold as it wasnt traditional "parking " it was no stopping or does that not matter?

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the phrase “Vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded” were taken to be a minimal compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), the PoC remain defective. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The claim is put on a contractual footing but no written terms are pleaded or exhibited, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The pleaded bases are internally inconsistent (“vehicle not permitted” vs “grace period exceeded”): either parking was prohibited (no contractual offer) or it was permitted subject to terms; it cannot be both.;

(d) No period of parking is pleaded, nor facts explaining how any breach is said to have occurred (a timestamp alone is insufficient);

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Hi thanks for your reply.  i'm not the driver so I wasnt stopped anywhere 

the video shows that the driver stopped the vehicle, the driver and passenger got out.  took something from the boot and the driver then went on their way.  this area is allegedly no stopping, its private land - so its not a car park as far as I am aware - but I wasnt there so i dont know for sure. but i agree with your points in that it makes sense to me - if the driver has to stop to and get out to read the sign that says you are not allowed to stop and if you do we are gonna send you a bill.  then they are relying on instant contract that you agreed to the charge before you read the conditions - well how is that fair.

hi thankls for your replies.  yes that was going to be my defence.  how can I enter into a contract with the company when I was clearly (from the video) not the driver or passenger.

I was also going to point out that this kind of thing is perverse - how can anyone enter into a no stopping contract when the person has to stop to read the sign that enters them into the contract that they can now no longer refuse because they have already stopped.

I will ask them for the pcn - do i need to ask them for anything else or should I just ask for all of it under SAR?

Hi I would like to thank you for the below.  Manchester Council dropped it at Adjudication and so I got my email today that its not contested and has been dropped.  So massive thanks

I saw the road marking 'Disabled' and parked as seen in the CEO's photos. I displayed my BB and clock and left. I did not look at the traffic sign because my stay was going to be short enough to fall within any BB restriction. I returned to find the PCN. I then looked at the traffic sign post and saw the suspension notice. This stated that the 3 bays which comprised this parking place were suspended from ** to 28 Feb. due to 'works'.

The CEO's photos show that the area was absolutely clear of any works or associated paraphernalia, including the road surface having been made safe for vehicles to park, and that the purpose of the suspension had clearly ceased. This is hardly surprising given the extended period of the suspension (over 4 months) i.e. whoever was undertaking the works would have given themselves a safety buffer of time when applying for the suspension.

I suggest that this is a case of left and right hands within the council not co-ordinating their activities i.e. whoever authorised this suspension had lost sight of the council's obligation to maximise the availability of these disabled spaces and had not checked whether the legal (Traffic Regulation Order) basis under which the council was permitted to suspend the space by the simple **** of signs existed on 25 Feb.(simply paying the fee does not satisfy the council's policy criterion of need) and the CEO simply applied a date perspective.

In summary, the only power under which a parking place may be suspended by officers derives from the TRO which requires that specified conditions must  be met before a bay may be suspended. The concomitant of this is that when this condition ceases to apply then the suspension has no legal effect. The **** of signs is simply a subsequent requirement and of itself is not evidence that a lawful suspension is in place.

I submit that the contravention did not occur and that the PCN must therefore be cancelled.

Is my take.

Edit- by way of example, see paras. 28 and 30 of one of MCC's TROs: https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Manchester/MC232.pdf

as expected they have refused a my representation, I assume i wait for notice to keeper and then appeal again and take it adjudicator.  what do you guys think the prospect of me succeeding is?

Hi thanks for your reply.

no works that we could see

Hi yes the location is correct in your link and chijiiki has provided the deets.  thanks