Court Claim Form help please

SaveMeSomeMoney wrote: »

thank you so much for your assistance and patience nosferatu 1001.
I have added the other details as you suggested and the defence now looks like this:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

2. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

Background

3. The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy, a critical kidney disease. and was undergoing a type of dialysis called Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) at the time of the alleged incident. Peritoneal Dialysis involves fluid bag exchanges four times a day, every day (Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis, CAPD).

4. The day of the alleged incident was a Sunday and the Defendant was out with his family. As it was time for him to do his scheduled fluid exchange, they decided to look for a restaurant where he could do the same and also where they could have dinner. So he parked up at the spot to quickly go and check whether the restaurant’s disabled toilet was suitable for him to do the fluid exchange.

5. Having made the necessary enquiries, the Defendant returned to the vehicle to move it to a suitable parking spot but there was already a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen, issued within the few minutes he was gone.

Preliminary Matters

6. The Claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

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.

7. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

8. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

9. On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

Mandatory Grace Periods Not Complied With

10. The PCN was issued for a 2 minute stay. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply withe Claus 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods:

13 Grace periods

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

Equality Act 2010 Not Complied With

11. The Claimant has failed to follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 which states:

Progressive Conditions: A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

12. The Defendant does not have a blue badge but clearly has a medical problem which is a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010. This therefore falls under the ‘reasonable adjustments’ criteria of the Act:

16 Disabled motorists

16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.

13. The Claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustment in allowing disabled motorists even the normal grace period required under the ATA’s Code of Practice.

No Contract Offered

14. It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site (which is scattered and inadequate) states “No parking on roadways at any time” which is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

15. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Points 5 and 6 above, a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

No Obstruction Caused by the vehicle

16. The Defendant would also like to provide photographic evidence to show that the roadway on which the PCN was issued is a wide roadway and the vehicle in question was not causing any obstruction to other traffic on the day of the incident.

Proof of Contract not supplied by Claimant

17. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

18. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

Double Recovery

19. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £248.30. i submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

20. I require the Claimant to provide strict proof that these charges were
a) detailed in the purported contract
b) invoiced, and
c) actually paid

21. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.