Claim Form defense

Hi Everyone!

So i've just prepared my first draft of my defense for a parking charge issued by SIP Parking Ltd and after reading some of the super useful tips and advice that you guys and gals have put on here i'm hoping that some of you are able to review it and give me some much needed feedback on it! I've never done anything like this before an i'm not legally minded so you could say i'm a little out of my comfort zone with this (hence me seeking your help)!

As abit of background, i recieved a LBC from Gladstones on the 12th April and i did respond to it but it was 1 day overdue and by the time gladstones had received the acknowledgement they had already submitted the N1 claim form!

Links to my PCN/ N1 Particulars of claim and LBC are below for anyone interested. You need to add the below links onto the end of a dropbox dot com address.

/s/l44i264uhcl781l/20170523_235823.jpg?dl=0
/s/qt1zy1ku5kij05b/20170523_235951.jpg?dl=0
/s/3081q03pw3u5tuw/20170524_000139.jpg?dl=0

Statement of Defense

I am XXXXXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question and the time of the alleged incident.

I deny liability for the entirety of the claim based on the following:

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
3. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give
the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is
mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper
liability' provisions of the POFA.

(2) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. The full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that ‘parking charges’ were incurred.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action
which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
The particulars of claim just states ‘parking charges’ which does not give any indication of on what basis of the claim is founded upon. There is no detail around why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was and the defendant cannot see how this could be considered a fair exchange of information. The particulars of claim isn’t fit for purpose as it doesn’t include any cause of action.
5. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
f) On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.

(4) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
1. A Letter before Claim was sent to the Defendant; however, this Letter before Claim didn’t comply with Practice Direction and was therefore deemed invalid. The defendant responded to this poorly conceived LBC on the 25/04/17 and requested it was reissued so that it complied with the requirements laid out in the Practice Direction. The claimant hasn’t responded to this request.

The original Letter before Claim was missing the following information:

I) The cause for action on which is the claim was made. The LBC references ‘parking charges’ but that in and of itself isn’t a basis for a justifiable claim.
II) A clear and detailed summary of the facts on which the claim is based. The original letter fails to provide any detail or evidence around the circumstances surrounding these charges and why these are owed.
III) The letter also failed to include a date of issue. The letter states that the defendant had to either pay the full amount of £160.00 within 14 days or provide a full written response but as they didn’t provide any indication on when this timeframe started it was impossible for the defendant to adhere too.
IV) The defendant also requested the opportunity to go through an appropriate form of ADR as the defendant was never offered this previously. The claimant failed to respond to this request which can only be assumed as a refusal to participate in ADR.

2. I refer to the practise direction section on non-compliance and sanction, there can be no justifiable excuse for the Claimant’s failure to follow the Pre-action conduct, especially when the claim was issued by the claimants own solicitors who should be well versed in pre-action conduct and should’ve advised the claimant to follow the correct and proper pre-court protocol.

(5) Withholding all evidence and basis for the claim made against the defendant despite this being requested by the Defendant. No timestamped photos of the car, parking tickets on the car and signage terms have been provided to the defendant to support the claimants case. This is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.

As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body
and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no
excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
asks leave to amend the Defence.


(6). SIP Parking Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the
reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

(7)
1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation on how the charge has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or why the amount has increased from £100 to £160. This appears to be an unqualified additional cost and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
2. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the
windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant
contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
4. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
(9) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
The driver would not have agreed to pay the original demand of £100.00 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.


(10)
1. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed with the likelihood of the figure increasing if the charge wasn’t paid. The claimant has suggested that this would be carried out by local enforcement agents/ bailiffs. It is implied that this will be done immediately if the defendant didn’t respond to their LBC.
This is false and a clear case of scaremongering as this would be a direct violation of pre action conduct and due to the reasons stated above the LBC that was issued was inadequate and fashioned in such a way that the defendant was unable to provide a sufficient response to it.

No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the
alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
2. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
5. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

(11). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any
photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms
hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract
Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.





I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)!