Help for defence for Court Claim

QuackNuts

Please could I have some help with a court claim form. I understand to register with MCOL gives more time to get the defence sorted. As Loadsochildren points out "you only get one chance". To summarise the defence: No notice to driver was issued. The Notice to Keeper was issued after 15 days. No period of parking is stated - just one photograph. Signage is inadequate. (Name on Court paper may be wrong - need to check the V5)
We want to claim costs too. I have the misfortune to be dealing with District Enforcement and their ever unhelpful mates Gladstones.:( This is a small part of a nasty situation and I understand PPC trawl these sites. I'm new to this so I hope I can PM the sensitive stuff if need be.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Redx

find a few gladrags defences over the last 12 months , especially any DE ones, draft the defence and post it below for critique

that is how it works

post first, ask the questions later and hone the defence accordingly , if in doubt add paragraphs anyway and ask for feedback on them

until this has been done , nobody will make serious comment about your case

first job is do that AOS, there are walkthroughs on this in post #2 of that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, including a timeline of events by BARGEPOLE

there is nothing new about your case, so just follow the others that have gone before you , you are not the first and wont be the last

Umkomaas

I notice you started a new thread to ask a further question about your case. Please do not do so. One case, one thread, everything contained in it so that advice is always set in the light of consolidated detail and context.

Everything from here on about this case - post in this thread only. Thank you.

QuackNuts

Hi Umkomass, the other thread is for 3 different cases, I've got over 10 so far. Will follow your instructions, I appreciate your help.

Umkomaas

QuackNuts wrote: »

Hi Umkomass, the other thread is for 3 different cases, I've got over 10 so far. Will follow your instructions, I appreciate your help.

Are they with different PPCs, or the same PPC but relating to different dates?

QuackNuts

Sorry for the late reply. I've been trying to clear some of the backlog of work while I've been researching all this.

They are the same PPC but different dates, most are different vehicles but a couple of vehicles have got two each.

This Court Claim is for one vehicle for one date and has been sent to the keeper. The vehicle was in our care at the date of charge but the driver has not been named. The keeper has acknowledged the receipt of service online but at the moment I'm waiting for the keeper's defence so it can have a read through.

I am so grateful for the help you provide and will write to my MP about PPC's and their horrendous harassment. Hopefully sanity will return soon.

Coupon-mad

OK, show us the draft defence in good time, for comments.

QuackNuts

Ok, so here's the draft defence at last, anything that should be added/taken out? Any help is much appreciated.
In the County Court
Claim Number:

---

Between
District Enforcement Ltd v

---

.

DEFENCE STATEMENT

1. The Claimant has no right to pursue this amount because no Notice to Driver was issued and the Notice To Keeper was not delivered within the relevant period as stated in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (POFA), paragraph 9(4 and 5.)
2. The Particulars of Claim claims the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and that is not the case and is against their ATA’s Code of Practice (Part C 1.3.) It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
3. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a full defence.
4. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the “parking charges/damages and indemnity costs” have been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4(5) specifically disallows.
5. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
6. The Claimant had provided no proof of a period of parking as specified in POFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2) The claimants have only provided evidence that the vehicle was at the site for a moment of time.
7. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, totally inadequate.
8. At the time of the event the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.
9. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
10. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
11. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Claimants ATA’s Code of Practice.
12. There was contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format. This signage mentioned no time restraints and contradicting fines.
13. The claimant has not provided a copy of their written contract with the land owner.
14. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
15. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf.
16. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. It is believed that the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.
17. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Name - Signed - Date

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE STATEMENT

NOT 'statement' just DEFENCE

Re this:

16. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. It is believed that the term for such behaviour is 'roboclaims' and as such is against the public interest.

Not true of DE, so remove it. It's true of BW Legal or Gladrags, but not 'the Claimant'.

QuackNuts

So, the Defence went in with the amendments recommended by Coupon-mad. Gladrags have now emailed the keeper (the Defendant) on behalf of their client DE, saying that they don't want to mediate and they want the case to be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing. They also attached a copy of the Directions Questionnaire with "PURSUANT TO PD27 (2.4) SEE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION AND N159. If the Defendant does not consent - Claimant's home court. " in box D1.

The Defendant hasn't received their directions questionnaire yet. Shall we give the County Court Business Centre a ring to see what's happened?

Umkomaas

How to deal with a DQ is covered in great detail in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, written by private parking small claims expert 'bargepole'.