County court claim..defence?

Inapickle01

Am I able to defend a county court claim against Horizon Parking or should I just pay?
There are 6 charges :eek: on this claim form! Stupid I know.
I don’t have any of the original letters as they’re from 2014/early2015 and I listened to the ‘just ignore’ advice. I vaguely remember receiving the first ones but have had absolutely no correspondence recently.
Do I stand a chance with a defence when it’s multiple charges ?

Redx

not really questions that anyone can answer

either you pay up or fight

even if you lost in court , it would probably be cheaper in the end

assuming you want to fight, please read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum

do the AOS online and then start to draft your defence

System

even if you lost in court , it would probably be cheaper in the end

+1. The judge will look at each ticket on a case by case basis and often there are mistakes in the paperwork. So worthwhile just to push it along and make it cost them rather than give them 100% profit on the claim

Coupon-mad

Inapickle01 wrote: »

Am I able to defend a county court claim against Horizon Parking or should I just pay?
There are 6 charges :eek: on this claim form! Stupid I know.
I don’t have any of the original letters as they’re from 2014/early2015 and I listened to the ‘just ignore’ advice. I vaguely remember receiving the first ones but have had absolutely no correspondence recently.
Do I stand a chance with a defence when it’s multiple charges ?

what did you think when you read post #2 of the 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' sticky thread and realised from other Gladstones claim threads (many are about a 4 figure sum) that we win 99% of defended cases like this?

Not sure why you are unsure and write as though your case is unusual. It's standard. Of course it's defendable.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, just do it

Acknowledge claim, do NOT enter ANYTHING into the defence box, anything at all.
read the thread, look for defences from 2017 and post them here.

Inapickle01

Sorry I’m not being ignorant, I’ve just had a baby so am a tad busy at the moment thanks for your reply’s.

The date on the claim form is 16th October. I only received it on 23rd October - the day I posted on here. I immediately googled it and must have clicked on a link that was on a page half way through a thread because I couldn’t really get the gist of what was going on and saw a comment about starting your own thread.
I filed the AoS and started on the newbie forum - I have opened link after link until safari can not open any more pages :-D I’ve tried to retain as much info as possible, saved webpages and taken notes for the next steps.

I am currently working on my defence (nearly done).
However, 28 days from date of issue will be Monday 13th November.
I think I read somewhere that you have 5 days added on to allow for postage. Is this correct or am I imagining it?

Coupon-mad

Yes that is correct but don't take it to the wire.

System

The 17th is the latest but best get it before then as they will apply for a default CCJ on 18th

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=16&m1=10&y1=2017&d2=17&m2=11&y2=2017&ti=on

Inapickle01

Annnnnnnnd breathe! I cannot thank you guys enough! As you may recognise, everything in my defence is what I have found on here. A mixture of comments and others defences.

There are 6 charges dating Nov ’14 – Apr ’15. Claimant claims; £720 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable. Interest of £145.20 continuing to judgment at £0.16 per day.

Any comments / amendments would be very much appreciated. : - )


1. It is acknowledged that the defendant, (NAME), residing at (ADDRESS) was the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

2. The claimant has failed to file enough information in the Particulars of Claim to enable the defendant to prepare a specific defence. This has caused significant distress and denies the defendant a fair chance to defend the claim. The claim merely states ‘parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable’. There are no details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract. There is no explanation for the vague description ‘parking charges’ and ‘indemnity costs’. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide dates and a unsubstantiated, inflated three figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

3. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The dates of the alleged incidents are (DATES). As per the particulars of claim the dates are nearly 3 years ago. I am perpelexed as to why the Claimant waited until now to bring proceedings.

4. The signs are unclear and unreadable from inside a vehicle. They are also placed too high to be able to read the small print. The parking charge is hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practise of the Independent Parking Committee clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can easily be read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” As can be seen from the photographic evidence this is not the case.
The signs are sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
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.
Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

5. Upon returning to the car park to closely inspect the unreadable signs the charge stated is £60. Yet the Claimant has doubled this cost and is requesting additional indemnity costs / damages without providing detailed explanation on what they are, if and how they have been occurred and the reason for which the defendant should be held liable for them. It is suggested that this is nothing but a means of artificially inflating the value of the claim.

6. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was the registered keeper of the vehicle. No evidence has been supplied by the claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land. At the time the alleged parking charges occurred it is possible for a number of people to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name any of them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

7. The claimants did not send a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. This should include;
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
c) How the “charge amount” has been calculated and justified.
d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

8. I am yet to have any knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. It is disputed that the Claimant has authority to operate and issue charges on the mentioned location in its own name. If the Claimant believes otherwise I request for the Claimant to produce the full, unredacted contract with the lawful occupier which authorises him to so operate in his own name.

9. 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. HMCTS 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.
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.

10. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, yet the Defendant would like to point out that this car park does not offer a free parking period therefore Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case does not apply.

11. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is unreasonable therefore, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

12. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.


Notes;

Point 2 – the claim form states “for breaching the terms of parking on the land at ……” I’ve gone over this in my head too many times I think I’ve confused myself. Breaching the terms of parking would be an explanation wouldn’t it? Or would it? I suppose that’ll teach me for copying other people.

Point 6 – would this still apply as it is post PoFA?

Inapickle01

Looks like we’re going to court

Received the below email;

Dear Mr X

Horizon Parking Limited
-v-
X

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

Yours sincerely
Andrew
Litigation Assistant


This looks like a pretty standard reply. It also says on their N180 ‘if the defendant does not consent - claimants Home court’
Does anyone know where their home court is? And would the courts honour this?

Inapickle01

Hi all

Is anyone around to assist?

I have, today, confirmed that the court fee has been paid and the hearing is in 3 weeks.

I drafted all my paper work previously and have received the claimants paperwork which has thrown a complete spanner in the works.

Can I upload a photo here? How do I do that if so?

They have included a Birdseye view of the car park. Part of the car park doesn!!!8217;t belong to Horizon but another private firm. Only 2 of the 6 tickets you can see are in their part. The other 4 could be anywhere in the car park, including the part they have no control over.
Which I would now need to change my defence.

Any help appreciated.

I!!!8217;m just off to the car park to take some proper photographs of the signs.