Is this a letter before court?

KeithP

Sort of worked.

Please do it again when you get home... just to get the pics the right way up.

Help others to help you.

Dudleydave

Tinypic is impossible to rotate images, no matter what I do! And I am fairly computer savvy!
Is it any use like this at all?

Redx

Dudleydave wrote: »

Tinypic is impossible to rotate images, no matter what I do! And I am fairly computer savvy!
Is it any use like this at all?

yes they are, but people will have to save them onto their pc as downloaded pics and manipulate them by rotating them and saving them again (which is what you should be doing and re uploading them)

Dudleydave

That makes no difference, tinypic seems to want to rotate them landscape whatever way you upload them. If someone can tell me different I would be only too happy to listen.
As far as the content of the signage goes, what do people think?
Nosferatu makes a good point regarding new signs replacing older unclear ones but would a judge listen to that argument being as I have no proof of this.
Then again the actual paystation is new too.
Surely they cannot deny that?

Thorsson

Try Imgur

Dudleydave

Thank you Thorsson, hope this is better.

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/u0QXSh5

Thorsson

Well I can read those.

BTW I see Terms & Conditions mentioned, but I don't see the Terms & Conditions on any of the signs, but maybe they actually mean simply the tariff and the need to display a ticket?

Dudleydave

Hi All,


Here is my first draft of my Defence, it is only a first draft but would really appreciate any advice, guidance, corrections or amendments.


Thanks in advance.




In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

Between:

XXXXXXX v XXXXXX




Defence Statement



I am xxxxxx xxxxxx, being the Defendant in this case. I am an unrepresented consumer with no experience of Court procedure. Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant's, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant's Solicitors.

This claim refers to parking incident at XXXXXXXX (named car park) on the XXXXXXX 2017.



1. As the registered keeper of the relevant vehicle, the Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim, for each of the following reasons.

a). This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. 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.

b). It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.


c). The outstanding time that is alleged to be unpaid for; which the Claimant states, I believe that allowing for this Grace period these minutes are negligible.

d). It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage or that there was any agreement between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.


e). The Claimant had stated that there was clear signage at the time of the incident, this is disputed, the Defendant states that since the incident the signage has been replaced with new boards and pay stations which suggest that the previous signage within the said car park were indeed inadequate.



2. The Claimants signs were in small print, the terms were illegible and a driver could not reasonably be expected to read and understand the terms of parking on entering and using the car park.



a). It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver. The signs were unclear and did not offer a contract to park. As the signs failed to enter the Driver into a contract with the Claimant then any costs claimed on a contractual basis cannot be valid.



b) The signs did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association to which the claimant is a member.



3. In the same Code of Practice to which the Claimant is a member of, it states a reasonable Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes after the parking contract has ended.

4. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis (2015) case. The Claimant as a third party firm incentivised to issue penalties, have any overriding 'legitimate interest' (like there was in the Beavis case) nor complex contractual arrangement that can disengage Lord Dunedin's penalty rule.

5. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.

a). The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 legal representative's costs to pursue an alleged £170 debt.



b). The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative's costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.


6. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed, adding further unexplained charges of varying amounts (£40, £70. £50, £25) with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. This appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.


7. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

8. Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.

9. At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the 'agreed and published' tariff rate is £1.38/hour, would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.



10. 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.


11. The Claimant, despite repeated requests from the Defendant has not responded with:


a). The details of the claim (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)



b). A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim



c). A copy of any alleged contract with the driver



d). A plan showing where any signs were displayed



e). Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
A detailed explanation of costs that you have added on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated





12. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant disputes the claim. There has been nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.




13. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to strike out or dismiss the case under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8) and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

14. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.


15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

The Claimant has not complied with the relevant pre-action protocol.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.




XXXXXXXXX

KeithP

1e) needs adjustment. Should start "The Claimant had stated..." and "may I also state..." should be in the third person e.g. "and the Defendant states...".

Dudleydave

Corrected, thanks Keith