Being taken to court

Coupon-mad

Right so have you now found a recent, similar defence to copy, from your Google search?

albo_uk

No i havent unfortunately still looking

Coupon-mad

So please answer the questions in post #27 by Loadsofchildren123.

I will remind you, it is ONE GOOGLE SEARCH so what's wrong with all the 2017 results you get?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can get no better examples than those you find if you just search the forum for:

Gladstones Jopson defence derogation from grant

If you can't get the hang of searching the forum, simply Google those words and click on 2017 forum results from here or pepipoo. Copy one...

We will help a person who makes an effort. If you can't be bothered to do one Google search and click a couple of times, expect to see your thread ignored.

albo_uk

Can i add this to my defence as well

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.


2.a) If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the
Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper
then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for
recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any
of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the
keeper of the vehicle have been met.

2.b) No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to
Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7,
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

2.c) Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been
provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in
accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.

2.d) No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has
made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with
Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3.a) The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that
were capable of being read and/or form a contract.

3.b) There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the street.
Other signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult
to read

3.c) Signage is not lit

3.d) The signage does not meet the British Parking Association
(BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC)
Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC, whose
requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has
been formed with driver and the notices do not provide the
'adequate notice' of the parking charge which is mandatory under
Schedule 4 of the POFA.

albo_uk

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

And have you been to the site to see exactly what the signage says and how/where the signs were displayed?

I visited the place and here are some pics from the signs

This one is as you enter the car park very small



Then this other one very high up in the wall 2m, could barely see it had to zoom in with my phone



without zooming in

Lamilad

The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

Change "any" to "ALL" otherwise they only have to show they comply with one aspect of the entire act (which the could do easily) in order to rebut this point.

2.b) No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

is this a car park that issues windscreen tickets or ANPR which sends your PCN through the post? If ANPR this point is not relevant. If tickets are you saying one wasn't placed on your vehicle?

2.c) Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

You can't say "where" at the start here because you're suggesting an NTD may not have been issued. You'll have to change it to "IF".... Again, not relevant if this location is ANPR

2.d) Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Again it should start with "IF" not 'where'...Problem you've got here is that para. 9 only deals with ANPR PCNs not windscreen tickets. So you're contradicting yourself.

The Claimant was a member of the IPC

PPS were members of the BPA in Dec 2015

albo_uk

This is how far i have gone any good?


Introduction
1. I am ......, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is

2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement
this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a bmw
, registered number xxx

5. The Claim relates to an unwarranted penalty sum arising from the vehicle having been alleged
parked at xxxxxx

5.1. The driver has not been identified by this Claimant , who appear to be pursuing me simply
because I was the registered keeper of the car, yet without using the only applicable statute which
would have enabled a parking firm to rely on 'keeper liability'

5.2. If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the
Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for
recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

5.3. No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in
accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5.3. No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in
accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

. It is denied that:

. A contract was formed
. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified
additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the
protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association
code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. That I am liable for the purported debt.

8. It is further denied that I owe any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any
debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.

Coupon-mad

That's a start, good to see you've shown a draft which gives us something to comment on although that's not finished and is very basic. I thought this was a residential car park so where's all the stuff about primacy of contract, the Jopson case etc?

If you did the search I suggested, EVERY result would have been defences with those cases cited. But so far you have only found a very generic one.

What are you doing wrong when you search for 'Gladstones Jopson defence derogation from grant'? Just bung it in the forum search and change the choice to 'show posts' (NOT SHOW THREADS). You will be looking at dozens of pre-written examples for residential car parks.

albo_uk

I am not resident there nor is the person who took my car
i am not sure why he parked there
i dont even know if he was visiting anyone

thanks for ur help

Lamilad

Lamilad wrote: »

is this a car park that issues windscreen tickets or ANPR which sends your PCN through the post?

So how do they issue PCNs in this car park?