Newbie - HELP with defence letter

Redx

parkingissues wrote: »

Do you know how I could improve this to make it a suitable defence statement?

Its difficult to understand all these legal terms.

no because I have no legal training but having read dozens or hundreds of legal defence son this forum (and on pepipoo forums too) you get an idea of what is included at each stage and what the typical legal defence points usually are

what YOU should be doing is finding and adapting an already written legal defence statement from other members who are further along than you are, and also adding suitable additional points that you have mentioned in this thread

yes it is but that is the nature of this legal beast and is something you will have to learn about quickly - ignorance of the law or procedures is no defence

read my signature below , and note that this forum is not about legal matters as such, but the issues around parking tickets, not court cases

parkingissues

Case law to read here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73989301#Comment_73989301

Please ask for your 2 threads to be merged, as I for one won't be replying again until they are.

Who do I ask for it to be merged, sorry I am not sure how to use this forum still.

Redx

one of the board guides listed at the bottom right of your screen when you have this parking forum up (not your thread), try soolin or crabman

parkingissues

I was hoping to find to find someone with a similar case to me, however I can't seem to find any. Could anyone give me any help, I've been reading these boards for hours!

parkingissues

I have had an defence from someone at pepipoo who kindly edited my draft, please could someone read over it? It would be really appreciated!

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
The Defendant denies that he was the actual keeper of the vehicle from February to May 2017 when most of the parking notices were issued
The vehicle had been vandalised and was impractical to repair
It had therefore been given to a homeless person as a shelter

The Defendant's lease imposes no requirement to display a permit or to have regard to the Claimant's signs
Although the Defendant normally displayed a permit, this was as a courtesy and did not signify any recognition of the Claimant's authority.

3. The Defendant had been specifically told by his landlord that "it was safe to park there" until the lease was renewed, possibly to introduce new parking conditions

4 The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has any capacity to take legal action.
The Claimant's Code of Practice requires that, if it is not the land-owner, its contract provides specific authority to take legal action
The Claimant has issued and pursued parking notices under three different names
The Defendant therefore has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the legal capacity or even a contract and puts it to proof of the fact

5. Even if its contract with the land-holder includes such legal capacity, the Claimant has none in the present case.
It cannot offer any contract to the Defendant who already had the right to park the vehicle
Neither could any contract exist if a permit was not displayed
It is impossible to make a contract to perform an action that is forbidden
Notwithstanding that the Defendant was authorised to park, a driver that parked without authorisation would be trespassing
The only party with a remedy for trespass is the land-holder, not the Claimant
Damages for trespass are limited to actual loss to the land-holder or, if none, the benefit gained by the trespasser

6 During the period when the parking notices were issued there were no clear signs displayed by Claimant, in breach of its trade association code of practice
The Claimant did not display adequate and legible signs until November 2017.
The Defendant asserts that they were installed because the Claimant knew that the original signage was inadequate

7 The Defendant denies that the vehicle was in breach of the Claimant's terms and conditions
The Defendant further asserts that on many occasions, the vehicle was not even present when the parking notice was issued and that the operative reacted aggressively when photographic evidence was requested

8 It is a matter of public record that the Claimant's operative has been prosecuted for harassment and a hate crime regarding the issue of parking notices
The Defendant asserts that that the operative has issued the parking notices maliciously and not for the reasons stated
The Defendant also notes that no other vehicles, parked in an identical manner, have been issued with parking notices

9 The Defendant asserts that the operative, on occasions, obstructed his vehicle and prevented it from leaving for the purpose of issuing parking notices
Restricting the movement of a vehicle is an offence under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 54
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the vandalism that permanently immobilised the vehicle was performed by the operative

9 Even if the vehicle had been in breach of the terms and conditions, there was only one breach and therefore only the first parking notice for the immobilised vehicle could be valid

10 The Claimant has not marked any parking bays in the car park. As a result, the parking is disorganised and overcrowded
Entrances and exits are frequently blocked
Neither are there any loading bays for the businesses and in fact painted double yellow lines have been painted where such activities are required
It would be impossible to operate several of the businesses at the location if the Claimant's terms and conditions were exactly followed
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not operated the car park in the interest of the land- and lease-holders.
The Claimant has instead operated it to maximise its own income at the expense of the lease-holders

The Defendant also counter-claims the sum of £**** from the Claimant that he holds vicariously liable for the actions of its operative or such higher sum as the court awards

The Claimant has failed to address:

Its operative's tortious interference with the Defendant's property and business
Harassment
Destruction of the Defendant's property

I believe the facts in this statement are true

soolin

I have merged al the threads into this one to keep all the replies together.

Coupon-mad

Redivi on pepipoo is a respected poster:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119122

Do you understand what is actually needed if you do a counter-claim, though? You have to pay a £25 fee and state a lot more detail if you want to claim something (not for your costs).

parkingissues

Redivi on pepipoo is a respected poster:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119122

Do you understand what is actually needed if you do a counter-claim, though? You have to pay a £25 fee and state a lot more detail if you want to claim something (not for your costs).

Yes, it was Redivi who did the edit of my original draft. Could I do a counterclaim later? I am trying to focus on getting this defence letter done by tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

Could I do a counterclaim later?

Nope.

Obviously you can claim your costs anyway if you win, at the hearing, but you will know that from the NEWBIES thread.

parkingissues

Please could someone look over my defence statement, I want to send it off ASAP. Am I correct in thinking I can send it off by email?
The Defendant asserts that she is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
The Defendant denies that she was the actual keeper of the vehicle from January to April 2017 when most of the parking notices were issued.
The vehicle had been vandalised and was impractical to repair.
It had therefore been given to a homeless person as a shelter.

2. The Defendant's lease imposes no requirement to display a permit or to have regard to the Claimant's signs.
Although the Defendant normally displayed a permit, this was as a courtesy and did not signify any recognition of the Claimant's authority.

3. The Defendant had been specifically told by her landlord that "it was safe to park there" until the lease was renewed, possibly to introduce new parking conditions.

4. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has any capacity to take legal action.
The Claimant's Code of Practice requires that, if it is not the land-owner, its contract provides specific authority to take legal action.


5. Even if its contract with the land-holder includes such legal capacity, the Claimant has none in the present case.
It cannot offer any contract to the Defendant who already had the right to park the vehicle.
Neither could any contract exist if a permit was not displayed.
It is impossible to make a contract to perform an action that is forbidden.
Notwithstanding that the Defendant was authorised to park, a driver that parked without authorisation would be trespassing.
The only party with a remedy for trespass is the land-holder, not the Claimant.
Damages for trespass are limited to actual loss to the land-holder or, if none, the benefit gained by the trespasser.

6. During the period when the parking notices were issued there were no clear signs displayed by Claimant, in breach of its trade association code of practice.
The Claimant did not display adequate and legible signs until November 2017.
The Defendant asserts that they were installed because the Claimant knew that the original signage was inadequate.

7. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was in breach of the Claimant's terms and conditions.
The Defendant further asserts that on many occasions, the vehicle was not even present when the parking notice was issued and that the operative reacted aggressively when photographic evidence was requested.

8. It is a matter of public record that the Claimant's operative has been prosecuted for harassment and a hate crime regarding the issue of parking notices.
The Defendant asserts that that the operative has issued the parking notices maliciously and not for the reasons stated.
The Defendant also notes that no other vehicles, parked in an identical manner, have been issued with parking notices.

9. The Defendant asserts that the operative, on occasions, obstructed his vehicle and prevented it from leaving for the purpose of issuing parking notices.
Restricting the movement of a vehicle is an offence under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 54.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the vandalism that permanently immobilised the vehicle was performed by the operative.
This regularly lead to a loss of income as it prevented food being delivered to customers.

10. Even if the vehicle had been in breach of the terms and conditions, there was only one breach and therefore only the first parking notice for the immobilised vehicle could be valid.

11. The Claimant has not marked any parking bays in the car park. As a result, the parking is disorganised and overcrowded.
Entrances and exits are frequently blocked.
Neither are there any loading bays for the businesses and in fact painted double yellow lines have been painted where such activities are required.
It would be impossible to operate several of the businesses at the location if the Claimant's terms and conditions were exactly followed.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not operated the car park in the interest of the land- and lease-holders.
The Claimant has instead operated it to maximise its own income at the expense of the lease-holders

12. The terms and conditions state that Vehicles must park fully within a marked parking bay' However no markings are present in the car park whatsoever. NPM cannot offer contracts since its terms and conditions are impossible to comply with.

The Claimant has failed to address:

a. Its operative's tortious interference with the Defendant's property and business
b. Harassment
c. Destruction of the Defendant's property

I believe the facts in this statement are true.