Court Case Gladstones next week, Court bundle finally received!

Also assumed it was struck out on 12th so why would i file a WS

Okay I will copy/paste what I have posted in another forum as I have now spoken to court:-

Hi yes name of driver was sent but I didn't do it until LBC, I reckon at that stage they chose to ignore it rather than reset the process (and lose their costs), driver informs me he has never received anything from them, personally i ignored the letters, shredded most as it was getting on my nerves until I received a bundled LBC with 2 dates on to me that I thought to get the CCTV footage together and stupidly I believed they wouldn't actually take action.

I have just come off the phone to the court and they said court fee was paid on time, and that the claimant should have sent you a defence 14days prior to the court date Friday week (9th) but that doesn't constitute a strike out and I should bring the lack of practice direction ignorance on their behalf to the court, but i should ASAP (today) submit a WS and any info to the court and other party.

Can I upload this to the court via MCOL and shall i just email to Gladstones by return and pop a copy in the post too?

Anyway copy/paste of the N180, blanking out what may be personal:-

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
1. The claim arises from the Claimant issuing an invoice for a ‘Parking Charge’ for £100 on
06/09/16 to vehicle registration XYZ XYZ to which the Defendant is the registered keeper.
2. The Particulars of Claim do not disclose any reasonable grounds
for bringing the claim and as such, are an abuse of the court’s
process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the
proceedings. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure
Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5 by
failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any
agreement by conduct. The particulars also fail to describe how
the amount claimed has been calculated.
3. The Claimant has subjected the Defendant to a barrage of letters, demanding ever increasing sums of money but failing to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims.
These letters have often misrepresented the legal process, in
attempts to threaten and intimidate the Defendant into paying the
amount demanded. The Claimant is a serial litigator and the
issuing of this Claim without any legal basis appears to be
another attempt to intimidate the Defendant, who does not have the
legal expertise of the Claimant, into paying an unsubstantiated
charge. This shows a complete lack of respect for the court
process and also demonstrates the failure of the Claimant to
attempt to mitigate losses, by escalating a £100 invoice “penalty fee”
into a demand for £277.30.
4. As a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), Pace Recovery & Storage are
able to access registered keeper details from DVLA. However, IPC
membership requires members to comply with their Code of Practice
which they have failed to do with respect to their signage in this
case.
5. It is denied that the Claimant is the landholder of the land in
question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest
in the land.
6. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at
the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient
authority to issue parking charges and issue enforcement
proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of
authority from the landholder.
7. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has
standing, then I submit that the signage at the site at the time
and date of the alleged event was insufficient to reasonably
convey a contractual obligation and also did not comply with the
requirements of the IPC Code of Practice to which the Claimant was
a signatory at the time. The signage was inadequate in terms of
the following;
• Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign
• Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity
• Lack of relevant terms and conditions, such as the fees for
parking
• Inadequate positioning of signs, for example, at unsuitable
heights
8. As the Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to make the
terms and conditions of the car park clear and prominent, it
cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park was
immediately aware of, and agreed, the terms and conditions. The
Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant saw, read and
agreed the terms upon which the Claimant is relying on the day in
question.
9. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the
Defendant then there can have been no contract, the Claimant has
no case, and as such, the court is invited to dismiss the claim.
10. Even had the terms and conditions been sufficiently prominent,
terms which are unfair are not legally binding. Terms which are
considered unfair include requiring any consumer who fails to
fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation. It is also unfair to impose disproportionate
sanctions for breach of contract.
11. It is anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the
Supreme Court ruling in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. This
case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis as Pace Recovery & Storage
have not demonstrated any commercial justification for the amount
being charged and the wording of the notices was not clear.
12. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as
debt collection costs of £50 and legal costs of £50. The
Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover
a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice
to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional
charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the
Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is
put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.
Furthermore, legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims
Court and should be struck out as unrecoverable.
13. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. Pace Recovery & Storage had the opportunity to invoke keeper liability at the time of the alleged contravention but chose not to do in favour of taking action against the driver. Their failure to invoke keeper liability when they had the opportunity should not be rewarded by an assumption of the keeper being the driver.
14. The vehicle is owned by a body corporate XYZ Ltd and the registered keeper is the company Director of the vehicle and not the main driver, the Defendant rarely drives the vehicle and could not possibly have been the Driver of the vehicle on the dates stated in the Particulars of Claim so cannot be held liable ‘as Driver’ either. Further, there is also no possibility of vicarious
liability by XYZ Ltd to the Claimant, since there was no
omission, contravention nor breach of contract by the Driver.
15. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions
16. XYZ Ltd is the owner of the vehicle and XYZ INDIVIDUAL is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that
Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice
and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory
wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the
signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any
non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.
17. The facts and information in this defence are true and the
Defendant company is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum
at all. The employee submitting this defence works for, and is
authorised to submit this defence by XYZ Ltd.
18. Considering all the above circumstances, I respectfully ask
that the court dismiss the claim.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.