We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Claim form defence draft critique
Magnum0121
Posts: 36 Forumite
Hello, could I please have some feedback on my claim form defence?
The alleged contravention is for parking without a permit in a residents area, outside of a bay. The amount claimed is £250 in total for an original single charge of £60.
I've already registered with MCOL.
Thank you in advance for any help.
Here are my defence points:
1.a. The amount claimed is unreasonable as it is significantly higher than the original charge of £60.
1.b.The amount claimed is unreasonable as the parking company have suffered no loss or damages.
2.a. There is no breach of contract as there is no offer of free parking. Jolson v Homeguard (2016) it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) does not apply to residential parking.
2.b. If the wording of the signage forbids parking then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract. In PCM-UK v Bull et al (2016) residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking therefore no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the land owner could claim, not the parking company.
2.c. In UKPC v Masterson (2016) it was also found that the signage was forbidding, so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
2.d. In Horizon Parking v Mr J it was also found that the signage was forbidding, so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
3.a. I was not the driver of the the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. The parking company are not relying on POFA 2012 therefore I am under no obligation to name the driver.
3.b. Excel v Mr B - Sheffield (2016) the Judge made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking keeper liability, there was no claim against the keeper.
The alleged contravention is for parking without a permit in a residents area, outside of a bay. The amount claimed is £250 in total for an original single charge of £60.
I've already registered with MCOL.
Thank you in advance for any help.
Here are my defence points:
1.a. The amount claimed is unreasonable as it is significantly higher than the original charge of £60.
1.b.The amount claimed is unreasonable as the parking company have suffered no loss or damages.
2.a. There is no breach of contract as there is no offer of free parking. Jolson v Homeguard (2016) it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) does not apply to residential parking.
2.b. If the wording of the signage forbids parking then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract. In PCM-UK v Bull et al (2016) residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking therefore no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the land owner could claim, not the parking company.
2.c. In UKPC v Masterson (2016) it was also found that the signage was forbidding, so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
2.d. In Horizon Parking v Mr J it was also found that the signage was forbidding, so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
3.a. I was not the driver of the the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. The parking company are not relying on POFA 2012 therefore I am under no obligation to name the driver.
3.b. Excel v Mr B - Sheffield (2016) the Judge made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking keeper liability, there was no claim against the keeper.
0
Comments
-
Is this related to your current sister thread?
If it is it is always best to have 1 thread so the context and previous posts can be taken in context and there is no need for our members who want to help you having to switch between threads
Please delete this thread and add this new post to you current thread ->
I think to do this you you click on the red symbol 'report post' and say you want this thread deleted.0 -
Thanks. I've posted to the older thread. I'll try to report this one now0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards