Claim Form Defence Advice

Coupon-mad

Yes, things like ''it is admitted that the Defendant is the driver of the vehicle at the material time'' and ''it is denied that the car was parked in a marked restricted area''.

JohnAllan

Ok great, thanks. I have pasted an updated defence below. If anyone can pick this apart over the next few days I'm willing to wait a little longer before I submit this so ensure it has the upmost success.

Can anyone please tell me the normal process after the court have received this defence? And what I am to expect.

Thank you.



FAO: CCBC
Claim No: XXXXXXXX
Issue Date: XX XX XX

Statement of Defence

I am X, the defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

1. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘Roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

2. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘Roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

3. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

4. This has prejudiced the Defendant's chance to understand the cause of action in this case, and the Defendant can only surmise that it may relate to an unwarranted 'PCN' placed on the car in February, when the driver had paid and displayed correctly. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

5. The Defendant made a telephone call to the Claimant in June questioning the parking charge as to which the Claimant explained the charges incurred due to the driver being parked in an area allocated for contractual workers.

6. Attempts were made to appeal the charge and the Defendant reasonably believed it was cancelled. Not least because there was no breach of contract and the tariff was paid, and in the phone call the Claimant suggested the car might have been in a restricted area, which the Defendant avers was not the case because the driver regularly parks in that area of the car park and the parking tariff is always paid for the space, in compliance with the signs.

7. There will have been standard signs up but no prominent ones were seen to tell the driver that this area was a temporary no-parking zone for non contractual workers. No signs and lines where seen to even suggest that, and this goes against the IPC CoP which says operators should add extra signs if they are either in a new site, or if restrictions have changed recently.

8. Clearly a temporary requisitioning of normally-used spaces is a big change and would need big signs/lines. And if this area was meant to be a no parking zone then there can have been no offer to park there. That would be a perverse situation: ‘’These spaces are for contractual workers only, no parking, but if you pay extra we will let you do what we've just prohibited”.

9. Even if the court finds that signs prohibiting parking were adjacent to the vehicle, it is confidently argued that these cannot have been prominent. Therefor no contract has been formed. Even if the court finds there were prominent signs, the Defendant avers that a prohibition on parking cannot also be a contractual offer to do that which is forbidden, for a 'charge’.

10. Even if the court is minded to believe that this site could, in theory, charge money for an issue such as this one (unrelated to the pay and display 'rules') then in any case, this would be an issue falling only under the tort of trespass, a matter which remains in the gift of the landowner themselves only.

11. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Coupon-mad

Can anyone please tell me the normal process after the court have received this defence? And what I am to expect.

The NEWBIES thread already does exactly that, in a link to a post by bargepole explaining it.

With this point (below) I would not make it sound so reasonable! It was news to you, so saying they 'explained' something sounds like they were in the right, to me. You want to paint the opposite picture of the truth:

5. The Defendant made a telephone call to the Claimant in June questioning the parking charge as to which the Claimant alleged for the first time, that [STRIKE]explained[/STRIKE] the charge[STRIKE]s incurred[/STRIKE] was apparently due to the [STRIKE]driver[/STRIKE] Defendant being parked in an area allocated for contractual workers. This was the first time the Defendant knew about this bay apparently having been requisitioned for workers, something that was not the case, not communicated with any barrier or clear extra signs, at the material time of parking in the bay as usual.

You might want to add some headings and plagiarise some of this one I wrote yesterday on pepipoo (not the bits about primacy of contract):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107768&st=80&p=1311428&#entry1311428

The headings, the first preliminary points (except the bit about losing an IAS appeal, unless you did) and the section about:

No contract and no breach - this bay has never been ''undesignated'' nor was it clearly marked as such

and all the parts that follow that section, lend themselves to your case as well because you are arguing that they arbitrarily removed a bay from normal use and failed to sign that prominently. Similar to that one in some ways.

JohnAllan

Hello, and thanks for all the help on this so far. I filed my defence and have now received a questionnaire.

Would someone help in answering the first two questions? This may be an obvious answer, but would I be agreeing with the following, or not?

A1 - Do you agree to this case being referred to the small claims mediation service?

C1 - Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case?

And I take it the hearing venue should be one closest to me?

Are SIP likely to not turn up?

Thank you,

John

Coupon-mad

Would someone help in answering the first two questions? This may be an obvious answer, but would I be agreeing with the following, or not?

All fully covered, Q by Q, by bargepole in the link in the NEWBIES thread post #2 about what happens when and how to complete your DQ.

And I take it the hearing venue should be one closest to me?

Yes.

Are SIP likely to not turn up?

No, Gladstones are likely to send a legal rep (who may have no Rights of Audience, more reading for you!).

JohnAllan

I have an update on my case and would appreciate some opinions on what to do next, if possible. I'll try and keep it brief.

1. I received a letter from county court saying the claimant needed to pay the £25 hearing fee by 4th December.

2. I received another letter stating that as the claimant failed to pay the hearing fee by the 4th December, the claim is now struck off.

3. I then moved house, and during January collected old post from previous address. I discovered two new letters. One which stated the claimant had paid the hearing fee 10 days late and that the hearing was back on for the 4th January. And another letter which was now requesting that I pay £196 by 23rd January due to non attendance of the hearing.

4. I contacted the courts to explain this matter and the fact I didn't receive the new letters after the case had been struck off. And didn't think it was fair that the case continued after a late payment from the claimant.

5. The response I've had is 'Defendant needs to apply on notice to set aside or vary the order made on 4th January.'

My questions are: Does this seem fair that the claim was brought back to life? And what my next step should be? Is there a payment still to be made by me, or shall I fill in the appropriate form before attempting any payment to the courts?

Thank you for your help!

nosferatu1001

It is irrelevant whether anyone here thinks it is fair or not.

You have been told what you need to do, which is make an application to the court. Costs £100, and I would suggest that you also ask the court to order the C to reimburse you. N244 i think.

Coupon-mad

When moving house, always set up mail redirection for 6 months, via the Post Office. Especially if you have been receiving court letters so close to moving, this was almost predictable.

Horrible situation for you but you have no choice due to moving house without mail redirection.

I moved house last year and had PO Mail redirection for a year so it's still covering me:

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/mail/redirection

JohnAllan

Thanks for the advice. What are the consequences of ignoring the order? And how would the cc find me anyway if I've changed address?

JohnAllan

Also, is what I have received a CCJ?