Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • maria212
    • By maria212 4th Sep 17, 3:02 PM
    • 33Posts
    • 4Thanks
    maria212
    Court claim deadline tomorrow
    • #1
    • 4th Sep 17, 3:02 PM
    Court claim deadline tomorrow 4th Sep 17 at 3:02 PM
    Hi

    I've tried reading through the newbie's forum and other posts but I'm still unsure how I should respond to the court claim,

    I have already done the acknowledgement of service but now have only until tomorrow the 28th day to submit my response.

    My main response is there were no signs stating parking was not allowed, I was parked next to a park and not inside the large venue that is 200 metres down the road and there were no lines, it was just random cars they ticketed and I have a disabled badge ( it wasn't on display but was hoping I can say it fell or wasn't seen).
    I did not receive any letters or images prior to this, the court claim letter was the first thing I received and I really can't afford to pay the extortionate amount they are requesting.

    Can someone advise the best way to word this, the claimant is parking and property management limited 100010.7286

    Many Thanks in advance
Page 2
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 5th Sep 17, 11:29 AM
    • 3,202 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    DoaM
    They're highly unlikely to have obtained proof of posting for any NTK, so how do they prove it was sent?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 5:56 PM
    • 50,114 Posts
    • 63,497 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I understand from the other posts its best to deny being the driver of the vehicle
    Only if the Defendant was not. No lies, only ''deny'' if that is true.

    'Denying' is not the same as not saying who was driving (the latter being OK).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • maria212
    • By maria212 5th Sep 17, 6:33 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    . Only if the Defendant was not. No lies, only ''deny'' if that is true.

    'Denying' is not the same as not saying who was driving (the latter being OK).

    I haven't denied or admitted her being the driver in the defence as yet to clarify I didnt mean lie I meant not confirm either way . . Have you had a chance to view my second draft, any comments?
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 5th Sep 17, 11:04 PM
    • 887 Posts
    • 1,861 Thanks
    Lamilad
    In post #11 I told that 5(c)(i) didn't make sense. Now it's 5(c)(ii).... Either reword or remove it.

    You need to look at grammar and layout:
    Para 8 is leading yet (b) does not flow.

    (a) Failed to inform the defendant of the original parking offence and fine, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.!
    This is a civil matter. You have not been issued with a "fine" and no "offence" has been committed.

    I conclude your signs are not clear and no contract was formed with the driver.
    Your defence is talking to the court not the claimant.

    (iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorized party using the premises as intended.
    "from by"????
    "Authorized" > 'Authorised'

    You say it's an unfair contract yet elsewhere you say no contract has been formed. Stay consistent!
    • maria212
    • By maria212 5th Sep 17, 11:32 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    In post #11 I told that 5(c)(i) didn't make sense. Now it's 5(c)(ii).... Either reword or remove it.

    You need to look at grammar and layout:
    Para 8 is leading yet (b) does not flow.


    This is a civil matter. You have not been issued with a "fine" and no "offence" has been committed.


    Your defence is talking to the court not the claimant.


    "from by"????
    "Authorized" > 'Authorised'

    You say it's an unfair contract yet elsewhere you say no contract has been formed. Stay consistent!
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    I have updated to the below, Im trying to get across there was no signs where the car was parked, on the opposite side there was a sign that is barely legible when entering the road and another hidden in a bush 100 meters away on same side of road and secondly no ntk or other letters were received


    5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    a) The Claimant is to put strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (ii) Sporadic and illegible no signage at site/entrance (signage only on one side and hidden in bush) breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

    (iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; there is therefore no contract, agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from a party using the premises as intended.

    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font, size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed that the claimant do not hold a legitimate contract at this venue. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    7. 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.

    8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a) Failed to inform the defendant of the original parking fine, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.
    • maria212
    • By maria212 5th Sep 17, 11:40 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    [IMG]hxxp://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3oaZVa5jhE7b0ptMTFKTEpuS2s[/IMG]
    [IMG]hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3oaZVa5jhE7VUk2dVFvd2NpVGs[/IMG]

    Pics (change https to work I believe )
    Last edited by maria212; 05-09-2017 at 11:43 PM. Reason: spelling
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Sep 17, 12:00 AM
    • 3,644 Posts
    • 1,865 Thanks
    KeithP
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3oaZVa5jhE7b0ptMTFKTEpuS2s

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3oaZVa5jhE7VUk2dVFvd2NpVGs

    What are those pictures of?

    The first one appears to be a short section of empty road, and the second on has a few flagpoles and a couple of signs that look like nothing to do with parking.
    .
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 12:11 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212


    What are those pictures of?

    The first one appears to be a short section of empty road, and the second on has a few flagpoles and a couple of signs that look like nothing to do with parking.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thats exactly where car was parked, a road with no signs or lines!
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Sep 17, 12:12 AM
    • 887 Posts
    • 1,861 Thanks
    Lamilad
    (ii) Sporadic and illegible no signage at site/entrance (signage only on one side and hidden in bush) breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.!
    "Signage at the site was sporadic and illegible. In places it was obscured by shrubbery. This is a clear breach of the BPA CoP"
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 12:24 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    "Signage at the site was sporadic and illegible. In places, it was obscured by shrubbery. This is a clear breach of the BPA CoP"
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    thank you, excuse the poor images it was taken on iPhone 4! I have tried to identify a: where cars are parked a and b: where there is a sign but it isnt easily identifiable or large [IMG]hxxp://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3oaZVa5jhE7NmswR1M2Y2RGQVU[/IMG]
    should i include these images in defence?
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Sep 17, 12:41 AM
    • 887 Posts
    • 1,861 Thanks
    Lamilad
    thank you, excuse the poor images it was taken on iPhone 4! I have tried to identify a: where cars are parked a and b: where there is a sign but it isnt easily identifiable or large [IMG]hxxp://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3oaZVa5jhE7NmswR1M2Y2RGQVU[/IMG]
    should i include these images in defence?
    Originally posted by maria212
    No, evidence comes later. Your defence is just a statement of why the case is disputed, in bullet point format.

    It should focus strongly on legal points that support your case and failings that diminish theirs.
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 12:58 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    No, evidence comes later. Your defence is just a statement of why the case is disputed, in bullet point format.

    It should focus strongly on legal points that support your case and failings that diminish theirs.
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Ok Thanks, are there any major legal points I have missed that would help my defence that are known of?

    I'm not sure how strong my case is, was thinking of adding something on no loss of revenue as it wasn't a chargeable car park or even a car park?
    Last edited by maria212; 06-09-2017 at 1:01 AM. Reason: grammar
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Sep 17, 1:47 AM
    • 504 Posts
    • 602 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Do not speak about loss

    Read up on BEAVIS for why this is a bad subject for you to raise.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Sep 17, 8:00 AM
    • 887 Posts
    • 1,861 Thanks
    Lamilad
    The defence is ok to send. You can back it up with a strong WS and skeleton (don't leave them til the last minute).

    You have until 4pm to email it if you want to do additional research/ add any points. Post a final draft on here.
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 12:13 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    The defence is ok to send. You can back it up with a strong WS and skeleton (don't leave them til the last minute).
    Was hoping it wouldnt go that but now seems it will, Also should I identify as a lay representive now instead of acting as defendant ?

    You have until 4pm to email it if you want to do additional research/ add any points. Post a final draft on here.
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Hi All, so I've been reading soo many cases its hard to know which bits will actually work in mine but have updated drafts, Really appreciate any help or support on the below, I will need to submit in next couple hours (in between classes) so please let me let me know does this draft or last work better?

    Defence Statement

    Preliminary

    A.The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    B. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Tesco Car Insurance with 2 drivers permitted to use it.

    Background

    The defendant denies all liability for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    2) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent, such notice served within 14 days of the parking event and without fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was not clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot add a random sum and bolt that on as well when neither the absent signs, nor NTK, mentioned a possible £237.70 for outstanding debt and damages

    4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    5. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    5.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    5.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was sporadic and deficient in number, distribution, wording and in places obscured by shrubbery to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    5.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, nor BPA CoP". POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and no contract was formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    5.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    a) The Claimant is to put strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

    (iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; there is therefore no contract, agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from a party using the premises as intended.

    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font, size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed that the claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this venue. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    7. 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.

    8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a) Failed to inform the defendant of the original parking penalty, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.




    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 6th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    • 3,202 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    DoaM
    3) Absent such (remove the comma)

    Generally - you have a mix of BPA and IPC references (e.g. 5.1.2 mentions the IPC); you need to be consistent and refer to the correct AOS scheme operator for this PPC.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 12:54 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    I found them on ipc register now I shall remove bpa references?
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 1:04 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    Version 1 or 2
    3) Absent such (remove the comma)

    Generally - you have a mix of BPA and IPC references (e.g. 5.1.2 mentions the IPC); you need to be consistent and refer to the correct AOS scheme operator for this PPC.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    I've removed all mention bpa and updated to Ipc as below - PLEASE CHOOSE VERSION 1 OR 2



    Preliminary

    A.The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    B. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings.

    Background

    The defendant denies all liability for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    1) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    2) There was no complaint ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent, such notice served within 14 days of the parking event and without fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was not clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot add a random sum and bolt that on as well when neither the absent signs, nor NTK, mentioned a possible £237.70 for outstanding debt and damages

    4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    5. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms was clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    5.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    5.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was sporadic and deficient in number, distribution, wording and in places obscured by shrubbery to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    5.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and no contract was formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    5.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    a) The Claimant is to put strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

    (iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; there is, therefore, no contract, agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from a party using the premises as intended.

    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) IPC CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font, size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed that the claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this venue. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    7. 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.

    8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a) Failed to inform the defendant of the original parking penalty, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.



    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 1:34 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    so this is the second final draft with bits added, please let me know which is best, I have an hour and half!!

    Defence Statement

    Preliminary

    A.The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, the Defendant respectfully requests the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    B. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings.


    The defendant denies all liability for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1 .This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claims in an informed way, hence the reason both appeals have been rejected due to me supplying extremely brief defence points.

    2. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    3. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    4. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.







    5. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.


    6. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such notice served within 14 days of the parking event and without fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was not clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot add a random sum and bolt that on as well when neither the absent signs, nor NTK, mentioned a possible £237.70 for outstanding debt and damages



    7. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was sporadic and deficient in number, distribution, wording and in places obscured by shrubbery to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and no contract was formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    9. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    a) The Claimant is to put strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

    (iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; there is therefore no contract, agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from a party using the premises as intended.

    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) IPC CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font, size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    10. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed that the claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this venue. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    11. 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.

    12 The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a) Failed to inform the defendant of the original parking penalty, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.



    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection
    • maria212
    • By maria212 6th Sep 17, 3:27 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    maria212
    Ahh time has run out almost so going with second version and hoping for the best!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,033Posts Today

8,778Users online

Martin's Twitter