New unexpected ticket

old_dinosaur

THANK YOU ALL
Have read and reread so many defences some are beyond my understanding as court language, but will continue especially as Parking Prangster has taken an interest.Need to submit defence by Monday though so late nights looming I fear.

The_Deep

I hope, when you have a nice court win under your belt you go for "unreasonable behaviour" costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).27. A stay of a few seconds is unreasonable, it is unreasonable for the Parking Weasel not to warn you, and the signs were inreasonably placed.


Claim for the time you have wasted on this matter at £19.00 an hour. You may not get it, but it is worth a try.

old_dinosaur

Thank you The Deep yes could add that in my Defence it has taken hours and hours of trawling the net and reams of paper and in all truthfulness probably equates to way over the £60 but it's the principle and hopefully a win here will help others.
Defence will be posted in a moment and so would be great if members could give positive feedback as it goes in the post on Monday or tomorrow if not much alteration.

old_dinosaur

IN THE COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. XXXXXXXXXXX



BETWEEN



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

AND



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
_______________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT

______________________________________________________________________

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

• I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt, arising from the driver’s very brief stop (16 seconds) on land adjacent to a Public Highway (a lay-by) at Heath Parade London NW9.

• The Claimant is aware that this brief stop was to enable a passenger with mobility problems to alight closer to her destination, than the car park 0.5 miles further on. The passenger on alighting noticed the Claimant’s headed signage, informed the driver, who immediately left the site.

• The Claimant states that this incident occurred on 11.03.2016 at 11.16. The Defendant disputes the time, as on the Claimant’s website the photographic evidence shows that the Defendant’s vehicle had rejoined the Public Highway at the time of 11.11.49.

• The Claimant is a member of the Accredited Operators Scheme, in which they agree to abide by the Independent Parking Committee’s Code of Practice, but theyhave fallen short of their obligation to this Code on several points.

• The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract. Signs are raised high up, with small text, which isdifficult to read. The signage did not meet the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice.

• The Claim is for a contract to supply “parking services”. However, the Defendant denies that any such services have been supplied or a contract to provide these services existed. In fact this sign is a “forbidding” one.

• The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision with Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will state that this case is different, in that the location was not a retail park or any type of car park and if the driver on the date of the event was considered to infringe on the land, then only the Landowner can pursue a case under a claim for trespass, not this Claimant and as the Parking Eye v. Beavis 2015 confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves in claiming a nominal sum.

• The Defendant would like to bring to the Court’s attention the IPC’s Code of Practice Part B 14.1 regarding predatory tactics used by the Claimant at this site..

• The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £xxxxxxx costs and also a £50 Solicitor’s fee. The Particulars of the Claim are incompetent and extraordinarily vague given they are to form part of the Claimant’s evidence.

• The Claimant is requested to provide strict proof that at the time of the alleged event, they were in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and to instigate proceedings in their own name and that they can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

• The Defendant will be providing medical evidence of the passenger’s disability.

• The Claimant has not complied with the pre-Court protocol.The Particulars of this Claim contain no details and fails to ascertain a cause of action, which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific case and be considered a fair exchange of information.

• As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, I request that the Court permits me toamend or supplement this defence, as may be required, following a more comprehensive disclosure of the Claimant’s evidence.

• The Defendant therefore, respectfully asks that the Court orders the claim to be dismissed, for want of a detailed course of action and that, as having no prospect of success, would thereby be deemed a misuse of Court time.

• The Defendant requests that the Court allow such Defendant’s costs to be permissible under the Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true

I have had difficulty copying and pasting this here so apologies if it's all over the place. COMMENTS APPRECIATED BEFORE SUNDAY THANK YOU ps bullet points are numbered but didnt come out here

old_dinosaur

Realised have added CPR 27.14 shows what this does to you lol!

The_Deep

Spell it out, it is CPR27.14(2)(g), in that it failed to make reasonable adjustments to acknowledge the protected characteristics of a passenger as required by the Equality Act 2010.

Coupon-mad

The Defendant therefore, respectfully asks that the Court orders the claim to be dismissed, for want of a detailed [STRIKE]course[/STRIKE] cause of action

Just a typo above, and add in what The Deep said about the Equality Act 2010, to your defence point below:

The Defendant will be providing medical evidence of the passenger’s disability.

And you must then number all your paragraphs. Looks like you have covered the bases you need to, nice work - and it's not templatey, it's concise and individual as a defence whilst including the usual legal arguments you can rely on later.

:T

old_dinosaur

Thanks for prompt replies. I did number bullet points as said under the defence statement but that to copy and paste they didn't show here. Did think about adding equality act but as passenger hasn't a blue badge wondered if was opening a can of worms! but can't be a bad thing to add anyway.
THe statement course of action was plagerised from another defence but cause means ground or basis for an action whereas course more to do with the proceedings of the action. Therefore thanks Coupon mad as now it's obvious that it is cause.

old_dinosaur

Further question once the defence is sent and I'll check it's reached Northampton, does anyone know roughly how long before you receive DQ and how long before it needs to be sent back as away for a week or so shortly and don't want to miss next step in process, quite looking forward to day in court and monies back for all this hassle.
Also when win want to go to press for all those other bods who unwittingly pay this low life company.

Fruitcake

old_dinosaur wrote: »

Thanks for prompt replies. I did number bullet points as said under the defence statement but that to copy and paste they didn't show here. Did think about adding equality act but as passenger hasn't a blue badge wondered if was opening a can of worms! but can't be a bad thing to add anyway.
THe statement course of action was plagerised from another defence but cause means ground or basis for an action whereas course more to do with the proceedings of the action. Therefore thanks Coupon mad as now it's obvious that it is cause.

A blue badge is not the only indicator of a disability, and there is no mention of the BB scheme in the EA 2010, so definitely add it. Including the proof of mobility problems is a good idea as well, assuming the passenger is happy for you to do so. It might be prudent to get a letter from them to that effect and include it as an appendix.