Court claim deadline tomorrow

maria212

Lamilad wrote: »

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.

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?

nosferatu1001

Do not speak about loss

Read up on BEAVIS for why this is a bad subject for you to raise.

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

Lamilad wrote: »

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.

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

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.

maria212

I found them on ipc register now I shall remove bpa references?

maria212

DoaM wrote: »

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.

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

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

Ahh time has run out almost so going with second version and hoping for the best!!

Redx

as its a statement of truth to go before a judge , then ensure it tells the truth and doesnt mention irrelevant or incorrect stuff, like the BPA/IPC dilemma

and I hope that you realise it needs PRINTING , SIGNING and DATING , SCANNING back to word or a pdf, then emailing as an attachment to the CCBC email address ?

ie:- dont just email your draft , because it is not signed and dated