Gladstones - Technical defence against PCM

Kas22

KeithP wrote: »

Then you have until 4pm on Wednesday 11 July 2018 to file your Defence.

Over a week away.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) print your Defence
2) sign it
3) scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) send that pdf as an email attachment to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
5) just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.

Got it, thanks. Is it also worth sending out in letter format?

Coupon-mad

No, waste of time.

KeithP

I wouldn't bother.

Others may well have a different opinion.

Kas22

Right, below is a section of the changes I've made (highlighted) by adding facts and removing the waffle:

7) It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the parking agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant believes there was an absolute entitlement to park at the specific area, outside of the car park, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

8) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the land owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

9) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) decide to add/remove parking bays from use by residents

10) No contract and no breach - this area has never been ''designated'' nor was it marked as such

11) The area at which the vehicle was parked at was a disassembled bike store which doesn!!!8217;t form part of the designated parking location for residents.
(i)The entire corner has no signs anywhere near it and it is marked differently by a raised surface, slabs and different concrete surface to the care park. There is a clear distinction of separation between the car park and the corner.(ii) The corner has no parking numbers allotted to it

12) It is denied that the vehicle was !!!8220;parked inside of a designated area!!!8221;. The Defendant parked legitimately in the area, used without penalty for many years by various residents at the site.

13) This Claimant has only in recent months, begun a predatory parking regime targeting residents and has unilaterally attempted to foist upon residents a change of rules, in complete disregard to any existing rights and grants; the Claimant being a stranger to the various residents' Agreements. No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the resident, in any case.

14) There is no site plan of the bay in existence, If such a plan now exists, the Claimant is put to strict proof of its origin and on what basis/on whose authority this particular bay has been decided to be 'designated' after many years of normal use by residents, and how this change of use was communicated to residents and/or agreed.

15) Other residents also routinely park their vehicles in this area. As there is no site plan identifying the parking area, the Defendant concludes that, given the fact that there is no site plan, the Claimant is not entitled, nor has any locus standi to decide that one bay is 'designated' as opposed to any other.

16) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

17) It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.

18) The Defendant avers that there was no specific parking signage in this matter, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above.
18.1. At the time of the material events the area was not within the remit of the parking zone.
18.2. Shortly after the ticket was issued, the controlled parking zone was removed due to residential uproar.

As again, any feedback thus far has been greatly appreciated and I thank you all for your help.

Coupon-mad

dissemble:
conceal or disguise one's true feelings or beliefs.

I think you mean:

disassembled
take (something) to pieces.

Kas22

That is exactly what I meant, but somehow wrote the other! Updated!


Does the defence look worthy of being sent?

The_Deep

Dissemble, diplomatic language for lying through one's teeth.

Coupon-mad

18.2. Shortly after the ticket was issued, the controlled parking zone was removed and the Claimant fired from the location, due to residential uproar against the predatory regime which no resident had agreed to. The Claimant can have no excuse of 'commercial justification' from the landowner, in setting out to sue residents on the excuse of their back-catalogue of rogue tickets from a site where they have been removed. This appears to be a revenge claim to try to make some money from a lost cause site where they no longer act with any authority. However, it was stated in the Beavis* case that a parking charge cannot be pursued merely to punish the driver. This is the epitome of an 'unconscionable' and unrecoverable penalty, as envisaged by the Supreme Court when they made it clear that the penalty rule applies to all parking charge cases, and can only be disengaged under certain compelling circumstances.

*You have still got the Beavis case in a numbered point higher up, have you?

Kas22

Coupon-mad wrote: »

*You have still got the Beavis case in a numbered point higher up, have you?

No. I've removed all references to other cases.

Kas22

Right - defence submitted!