Can someone clarify something for me please?

KeithP

I can't see that you have mentioned it, but did you do the the Acknowledgement of Service by 3rd December?

Post #60 above tells you how to do that.

Hilee87

Hi
Yes I did:)

Just need to have this done and submitted by Monday

Hilee87

Any super duper defense writers out there that can help?

Midy147

Hi you will find plenty of defences on this forum if you search the parking company claiming against you above. You will want to find some more legal points as whatever you mention in the defence can be used later in the witness statement and on the day in the court. Include all points that apply.

Redx

I strongly suggest you do as mentioned above and READ a few of the defences ( no S in defence , perhaps you are using an incorrectly spelt word ?) written or honed by member BARGEPOLE over the last 6 months or so

start by comparing yours with his CONCISE DEFENCE, which also includes the header and footer that yours lacks

Hilee87

Hi both
Thank you for responses, it's much appreciated. I have sat a read as many of the defences I can find, and also using the template from bargpole, I'm struggling however to find examples of legal arguments that are applicable in this case and I'm worried I'll be putting in arguments from other defences not related to this one, I hope that makes sense?!
I feel the only argument I have is that the photos have been taken to deliberately obscure my permit... not sure what other arguments I can put in there?
The header and footer is also on the saved document, I just didn't copy and paste on here

Cheers

DoaM

Draft your defence and post a copy here (redact any identifiable info). People can then critique it and help you hone it. We're not a legal claims defence-writing company, and don't have time to do the legwork for everyone.

Hilee87

Thanks folks, will do some digging and further research today and post an amended/improved version today.

Hilee87

Hi guys, so I've taken some more time to search more posts and a bit of googling and the following is what I have so far... Please feel free to advise on and changes and/or additions...

In the County Court
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX
Between:
UK PARKING CONTROL LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of VRN XXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXX. However, the Defendant denies any breach of prominently displayed terms and denies that any consideration flowed between the driver and the parking operator, or that there was any “relevant contract” or “relevant obligation” that could give rise to the Claimant’s punitive charges
3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant was an employee at XXXXXXX, and was issued and continued to hold a valid parking permit for the car park for the duration of employment at XXXXX. The aforementioned permit was displayed at all times

4. The Defendant's case is that the permit was displayed at all times and there to be seen. The allegation is based on images taken by Parking Attendant’s alleging that there was no valid parking permit displayed. These are merely images of the vehicle taken from a point where the parking permit was obstructed from view. The Defendant claims that the photos taken by the parking permit were taken from a deliberate angle as to obstruct/hide the permit from view. This goes against section 9.5 of the BPA Code of Practice; “9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges”. The claimant must be aware of the fact that UKPC were banned by the DVLA twice recently, once was for more than one employee at various locations, fraudulently altering evidence photos.

5. 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.

6. 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 who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra preferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did.

7. The Claimant, or their legal representative, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded. Furthermore, the Defendant submits that the legal representatives cost have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. The two letters sent are templates used as part of their mass litigation model in an attempt to circumvent the court costs rules using double recovery.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated 'parking charge' (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation). The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims at all, and that the filing of yet another fact-unchecked parking claim by SCS Law is purely a daily administrative function.

8. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. Not to mention they were also banned from accessing the DVLA database as recently as April 2018. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

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 that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


………………………………………………………. (Defendant)


Additionally, I have also been touch with the Property dept at work and they have confirmed the store has 2 allocated spaces in that car park and are not aware of a permit system. they are checking with the landlord for me!

Redx

whilst most of us (including me) have no legal training, it certainly looks more like what BARGEPOLE would write and certainly seems reasonable on a skim read, it even has the correct header and footer too

read post #60 again as KeithP commented on the due by date and how this will be submitted once complete (emailed as a signed and dated pdf attachment)