County court Letter And help with defense

elsmore95

Are you referring to 6 on my first defense draft or the second defense draft this may be causing the confusion ?

Redx

why are you still using the word defense with an S when you have been told it has a C in it ?


DEFENCE


not DEFENSE STATEMENT


not DEFENSE


just DEFENCE (with a C)


the court is looking for all the legal reasons that you as a defendant are not liable for the sum that the claimant is claiming


so you are putting the claimant to strict proof of their claim by stating the facts seen in other defences like NO LEGAL STANDING , POOR AND INDEQUATE SIGNAGE , NOT THE SAME AS BEAVIS , any POC failures , any CoP FAILURES , plus all the other legal issues that you are stating the claimant must resolve to the judge BEFORE the judge makes their decision


so if there are scant particulars, no proof of ownership etc , say so in your defence , make them prove each and every one , like a hurdle race where the winning horse must jump over every hurdle successfully , because falling at hurdle 1 , or 2 , or 3 means they lose


until you post a suitable defence , based on what you have been told, nobodyt can really help you


once a suitably adapted defence has been posted , without spelling mistakes, with the correct PPC named etc , then it can be honed by the critique you receive


until now nothing you have posted resembles what is required by you, nobody here will do it for you , its a DIY job that people will comment on once you have done the research and put in the relevant legal arguments

if you keep copying and pasting and posting a defence one after the others its obvious that you will be confused by the replies , you should be posting one suitable defence AFTER you have adapted it


its not rocket science, but its not painting by numbers either


hope that explains it ?

elsmore95

Thank you Redx that was a detailed reply. I like the hurdle race example it makes sense however from my point of view I like many others I’m sure who post on here for advice are way out of their depth. I now understand the principle of a defence, what I did was post what on other threads has been a good example defence draft in order for people to advise me what is relevant and what Isn’t relevant and what I should consider adding. I understand it is a DIY job but I have been reading and searching threads all day and I can’t find any examples of defence which include no proof of ownership etc which is why I was hoping people more in the know could either point me in the right direction with other thread examples or if they can write in law language advise I put this law instead of this law etc
I’m sorry if I’m being a nightmare I really do appreciate everyone who has taken time to reply I am just really struggling I have no doubt that when it gets to the WS and the hearing I will be fine as I believe my evidence is strong however transferring that into a defence in law terms that is suited to my case is the bit I am struggling with.

Redx

what you are failing to realise is that this forum is not a legal advice forum about court claims (as it says in my signature in every post I write)

neither have I or the vast majority who help on here any legal training and have not been through the court process either , so the vast majority who post on here are "out of their depth" , including me when it comes to court cases

there are perhaps 5 people on here who can offer legal advice , 2 of them are known to be solicitors who could actually spend 25/8/367 hours days and weeks and years on here just helping people like you, but they also have busy lives and practices to run , plus there is no profit in free advice

nobody here will look at the other defences (of which there are hundreds to choose from) and advise you which to use

you find and adapt one after looking at a dozen, post it and you get critique back, it is then adapted and honed until its suitable to submit it

you were also told about the DEFENCE word and have continued to use the american version , plus if it is UKCPM then dont mix up the letters like a slightly dyslexic person like me would do - this is going to be seen by a judge , so get the basics right for starters

almost every defence I have ever seen starts with no landowner authority , so that is easy to find , its always a defence legal point so hundreds of them contain it , so number 7) should be higher up as its the whole basis of any defence

it is up to the claimant to prove proof of ownership, or contracts that go back to the landowner , so you are stating they do not have this (locus standii) and require them to prove it to a judge, which is the case in almost any defence , so I fail to see how you have missed that important point , seeing as its the first hurdle for them to overcome (especially as the PPC wont own the land anyway , so must prove they have the right of contract leading back to the ACTUAL landowner)

you wont find many laws relating to private parking , because it is an unregulated industry , hence why you will refer to other legal cases including any precedents like BEAVIS

not sure why you are looking for laws, because very few exist , unlike public roads , councils etc

elsmore95

Thanks again for a detailed response I understand. I am going to spend another day tomorrow researching defences and taking bits and pieces out of others that I believe will help mine starting with number 7 going to the top of the list as you advise. Hopefully by the end of play tomorrow I will have a draft that I will no doubt of spent a long time stressing over ready for further opinions. Once again thank you for the time taken to help.

elsmore95

Ok so I have spent the morning reading through defence threads relevant to my situation i have used one from @completelyfubar as it's recommended on the NEWBIES thread and is excellently laid out as stated by @coupon-mad. I have deleted parts that i dont think apply to myself and added bits from other defences i think will help. In 7.2 i have added about the clamping sign. @completefubar was a similar situation as he was ticketed through someone taking a photo on CPM i-ticket app when they did not own the land, therefore the beginning of the defence starts with this fact as suggested previously by @redx.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

MYSELF (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
Preliminary
1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says; If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowners behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example Money owed £5000
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
3.2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states parking charges which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
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.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their roboclaim particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.

3.4.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

Background
4. 1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a <insert colour> <insert make> <insert model> motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on <insert date> at <insert location> that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the Claimant.

5. UK Car Park Management Ltd are 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 action regarding this claim.
5.1. 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.
5.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
5.3 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. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

6. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the parking charge has 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 specifically disallows.
6.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
6.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
6.2.1. 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.

Failure to set out clear parking terms
7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
7.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
7.2. There is signage within the same car park which mentions !!!8216;wheel clamping in operation which The Protection of Freedoms Act makes it an offence to clamp on private land.
7.3. UK Car Park Management Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.

There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.

8. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
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. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
8.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
8.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
8.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
8.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representatives costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
9. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim 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).

10. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

11. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

12. 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.

13. 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.

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

Name - Signed - Date

KeithP

As the issue date on your Claim Form is 11th June, you have until 30th June to do the Acknowledgement of Service to buy you fourteen extra days to prepare your Defence.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th July to file your Defence.

elsmore95

Thanks for the response I am already aware of the acknowledgement of response I have already done this I’m just looking for feedback on my defence draft I posted above before I email it to the court. Many thanks.

Loadsofchildren123

You've established that part of the land is owned by number 5. Out of interest, was it that bit of the land you were parked on for this ticket, or do you park all over?


You haven't established who owns the rest of the land. You need to do this


Phone land registry, they are very helpful. You should be able to send them a plan marking out the area land you want to search and to know who owns it. They will then apply that map to a search and tell you who owns which parts of it, so you should find out who owns the other two parts of it. It may be unregistered land, in which case nobody can tell you who owns it.


If you find out it's not hers, then you defend on that basis, and write to the PPC asking them for a copy of their contract with the landowner. Say you believe their contract is with Ms xxxxxx, who is in fact not the landowner at all and provide them with the evidence the land doesn't belong to her. Say that on this basis their claim is baseless and they are trespassing on the land which Ms x has no rights over. Tell them they must withdraw the claim, and if they don't you will counterclaim for damages for trespass and harassment. And put in a counterclaim.


If you find out who owns it, you could approach them and ask them if you can park there in return for a small fee, for any future problems.


What to do with the problem in future? You could write to her and tell her she is harassing you and trespassing (it's a trespass against goods, not land, ie your car) via her agent, the PPC, and she must stop or you will sue her for damages. But what's going to happen then? Will your car start being mysteriously damaged? Just think this through.

Loadsofchildren123

When you are looking at the title document from land registry, look at the Proprietorship Register, don't worry about the Charges register.