Should I just give in and pay (details in post)

nosferatu1001

It is critivcal the defence is signed
the easiest way to do so is to take a photograph of your signature on very white paper, and add that ot the word procesor document. Then convert it all to PDF
Reduces the file size as well.

KeithP

You need to email a signed copy.

Without a signature your Defence will be returned as unacceptable.

Perhaps you can take a picture with a phone of your signature on white paper, then embed that into your PDF document at the appropriate place.

Beehj84

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

It is critivcal the defence is signed
the easiest way to do so is to take a photograph of your signature on very white paper, and add that ot the word procesor document. Then convert it all to PDF
Reduces the file size as well.

KeithP wrote: »

You need to email a signed copy.

Without a signature your Defence will be returned as unacceptable.

Perhaps you can take a picture with a phone of your signature on white paper, then embed that into your PDF document at the appropriate place.

Thank you both. That was going to be my approach, but I wondered whether I needed to make the effort to drive to my parents place.

So is the defence good to go?

Beehj84

Beehj84 wrote: »

Thank you very much. I've made some amendments - does that look sufficient? Is it a mistake to add the bit about MPs in point 9?

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXX, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Defendant attempted to pay but was frustrated by the Claimant’s payment system, which was unreachable by the Defendant at the time of entry. Further, no alternative payment methods like the obvious cash-based pay and display system were available for use within the facility. The full daily rate for the vehicle in question was paid a matter of hours after entry regardless – no attempt to avoid responsibility of payment occurred.

8. Given the full daily rate was paid as soon as was reasonably practical by the defendant, and before any charge notice was sent through the post, no such ill intent can be construed and any breach is therefore de minimis and should not have been brought to court at all.

9. That this case has been brought to the court at all is evidence of what MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry in February 2018 referred to as “rip-offs from car park cowboys” which “must stop”, including “unfair treatment, signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued” and “years of abuse by rogue parking companies” which resulted in a unanimous conclusion; “we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this”.

10.The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

The defence as it currently stands, just to make responses easier. Thanks in advance for any help, or giving me the go-ahead to use it.

Beehj84

Thank you everyone for your help - I've sent the above defence now. I'm assuming that no response to multiple questions about the defence means it's now as good as it can be.

I'll keep you posted on the outcome.

Beehj84

Quick question - I submitted the defence this morning via email as per KeithP's suggestion.

I will be watching the MCOL dashboard all day to check that my defence was received okay, but if I dont see it update as "Defence received" before 3:30pm, should I go ahead and use the MCOL defence submission process to ensure it is uploaded before the end of day today (my final day of defence submission)?

Scrap the above - my defence status was changed to "received" when using the email as KeithP suggested, approx 2 hours after being sent.

Also, my defence doesn't specifically mention that I have evidence of my attempted payment on the day in question; it's implied in point 7/8 and I supposed that the evidence i'm to still provide would make that clear. Is that a problem?

DoaM

Your Witness Statement (to be supplied a few days before the hearing) can include the actual evidence ... just as long as it is not trying to introduce new defence points.

Beehj84

DoaM wrote: »

Your Witness Statement (to be supplied a few days before the hearing) can include the actual evidence ... just as long as it is not trying to introduce new defence points.

Wonderful. Thank you kindly for the reply.