Total parking solutions/ ie legal solicitors

miladm1067

2 photos show the numberplate of the car with the sign

Coupon-mad

Of course their evidence would have to show the car was there more than 20 minutes, since there is a 20 minute allowance to load and drop off passengers and they have no evidence of what activity was occurring. Your defence is they've failed to show a contravention.

What would be my defence on the "no parking at any time" signs:/- car breakdown?

Nope, you can say there is no offer of parking, therefore no contractual agreement. If the University felt the car was trespassing then they (not a third party scumbag) could recover nominal loss but a sign prohibiting parking, does not also 'offer' it (think about it...).

A contract MUST include an offer, something of value. Not 'no parking'.

miladm1067

This is not finished. Just wanted to check if I was on the right track?





the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

tps v ___

Defence!Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

intend to defend any claim and I advise that your client withdraws at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending a claim against me as registered keeper. I believe any claim by TPS misguided, baseless and will no doubt fail.

I am defending this as the admitted driver.


Due to my local knowledge of the area and having inspected the signs at the location stated before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the location in question, the placement of such signs is not only sporadic and affected by foliage around them but the terms are illegible from a driving seat. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any supposed contractual terms are void for uncertainty.


There is no offering of parking, therefore there was no contractual agreement between the driver (me) and TPS.

TPS are trying to claim nearly a thousand pounds in total for seven parking events at 60 pound each. The recoverable amount is 445.



The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. In each demand, your client has included an addition in costs/administrative charges which are not defined in any contractual document. It is my strong belief that your client's additional costs are arbitrary, unsupported and are clearly an attempt at double recovery,

our client needs to be aware of several recent cases where the Judges ruled Elliott v Loake as not relevant or applicable, including Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016, and Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. Further, Excel v Lamoureux at Skipton C3DP56Q5 involved three unreasonable claims in which DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds examined the Parking Operator's NTK and found that it did not comply with the POFA. The claimant was warned not to bring further baseless non-POFA cases to that Court and were forced to discontinue the final troublesome claim




The lack of evidence provided in the particulars of claim do not show the alleged overstay of over 20 minutes in a drop off area.


If your client will not withdraw, then I ask for your response to the matters above and for the following documents:


i. The contract (or chain of contracts) between your client and the site landowner - not a site agent or other non-landholder - giving your client authority to carry out parking management and on what terms;

ii. Any and all photographs taken of my car on the material dates;

iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as iv below);

iv. A copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

v. A map showing the boundary within the site, purportedly operated by TPS., as opposed to the other parking operators also operating at this location.


These are core documents, central to your client’s claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. I would have expected at the very least, that the contract requested under iii above should have been appended to the Letter Before Claim. I am requesting these documents because I clearly require them in order to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim and/or a meaningful POPLA appeal, as is my entitlement. The CPR clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16 – any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

miladm1067

anyone available to review this pls x

[Deleted User]

Decent start. Needs work/reformatting. Please add:

1. Numbered paragraphs
2. Sub headings
3. A section dealing with the background to the parking
4. A section dealing with the defence of particulars
5. Section dealing with other arhuments/points you wish to make
6. Section dealing with claimants claim for costs and any claim you make for costs

miladm1067

Any advice on where to add further depth?

the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

tps v ___

Defence!Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.




Paragraph 1


I am defending this as the admitted driver and I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
intend to defend any claim and I advise that your client withdraws at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending a claim against me as registered keeper. I believe any claim by TPS is misguided, baseless and will no doubt fail.

Paragraph 2


Due to my local knowledge of the area and having inspected the signs at the location stated before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the location in question, the placement of such signs is not only sporadic and affected by foliage around them but the terms are illegible from a driving seat. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any supposed contractual terms are void for uncertainty.


There is no offering of parking, therefore there was no contractual agreement between the driver (me) and TPS.

Paragraph 3

TPS are trying to claim nearly a thousand pounds in total for seven parking events at 60 pound each. The recoverable amount is 445.

The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. In each demand, your client has included an addition in costs/administrative charges which are not defined in any contractual document. It is my strong belief that your client's additional costs are arbitrary, unsupported and are clearly an attempt at double recovery,

Paragraph 4

our client needs to be aware of several recent cases where the Judges ruled Elliott v Loake as not relevant or applicable, including Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016, and Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. Further, Excel v Lamoureux at Skipton C3DP56Q5 involved three unreasonable claims in which DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds examined the Parking Operator's NTK and found that it did not comply with the POFA. The claimant was warned not to bring further baseless non-POFA cases to that Court and were forced to discontinue the final troublesome claim

Paragraph 5
The lack of evidence provided in the particulars of claim do not show the alleged overstay of over 20 minutes in a drop off area. The particulars of claim also do not show clear pictures of the sign and car.

Paragraph 6


If your client will not withdraw, then I ask for your response to the matters above and for the following documents:


i. The contract (or chain of contracts) between your client and the site landowner - not a site agent or other non-landholder - giving your client authority to carry out parking management and on what terms;

ii. Any and all photographs taken of my car on the material dates;

iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as iv below);

iv. A copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

v. A map showing the boundary within the site, purportedly operated by TPS., as opposed to the other parking operators also operating at this location.


These are core documents, central to your client’s claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. I would have expected at the very least, that the contract requested under iii above should have been appended to the Letter Before Claim. I am requesting these documents because I clearly require them in order to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim and/or a meaningful POPLA appeal, as is my entitlement. The CPR clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16 – any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

miladm1067

how long do i have to submit def?

[Deleted User]

Really? At risk of being Mr Grumpy, with the claim form you will have received the Response Pack which makes quite clear the deadlines for your defence. As will, I presume, the Newbies thread.

If you're gonna defend this you need to do some of the work yourself, too. Only my clients get to delegate it all to me :cool:

The period is 14 days from receipt, unless you filed an Acknowledgement of Service, which extends time to 28 days from receipt. That's why the forum advises that the AoS is completed ASAP. Only you can know what that date works out at (and yes weekends do count as days).

miladm1067

mine is due by the 3rd of August. any further suggestions please?

Coupon-mad

You need to change every use of 'your' to 'the Claimant'.

This is a defence addressed to the court, about the Claimant's case, not a letter addressed to 'you'.