N1SDT Claim Form Recieved - No communication up to this point

Denji11

Take two.... thanks again for any assistance this is all very new and is taking some time to sink in...

All references to POFA to be removed? Ive taken out references to the claimant being unable to identify the driver:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Background
1. The defendant was issued a PCN notice by the claimant on xxxx at xxxxx.
2. The private parking area in which the claimant manages looked like a public parking area as no clear parking signs were visible.
a. There were other vehicles parked around the defendants which blocked the view of the sign.
b. This is evidently visible by the way the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle had been left yet it still did not block any public walkways or cause any disruption.
3. The parking sign on display was relatively small and particularly difficult to read from the distance the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked at, particularly as a motorcycle rider through a helmet the specific details would have been difficult to read if the sign was at all visible.
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;
1.1 !!!8220;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 !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; 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 landowner!!!8217;s 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.!!!8221;

2. 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. Inadequate signage details no parking outside of a designated area / parking bay - yet none are defined. 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 have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

2.1 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):
2.2 those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example !!!8216;Money
owed £1000!!!8217;,
2.3 those which are incoherent and make no sense,
2.4 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 complied with the pre-court protocol.

3.1 I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the
Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by
their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
3.2 There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.

3.3 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

3.4 The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
rider of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage.

(2). The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no specific cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
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.
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 !!!8220;parking charges!!!8221; 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.
5. The claimant!!!8217;s inadequate signage detailed information which was not true as of the private parking area where the charge was incurred.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
6. 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 !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;
a) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 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.

(3). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

(4). UK Car Park Management 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.
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.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
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

(5) .
1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed 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.
2. 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). The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the rider
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read, particularly through a motorcycle helmet.
2. The sign is in such a position that!!!8217;s easily blocked by other vehicles. When the defendants vehicle was parked there were other vehicles surrounding it which blocked the visibility of the sign.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to !!!8216;validly display!!!8217; the ticket in the
windscreen, this is again in particular for a motorcycle, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant
contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
3. In the absence of !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
4. The signage displayed information which was incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant.

(7) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.
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.

(8)
1. 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 !!!8216;local!!!8217; recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs)
2. 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 sign.
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.
2. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs
to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
5. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

(9). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.

(10). The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

(11). I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

All references to POFA to be removed?

Yes because you are defending as the motorbike rider who parked.

The POFA is not relevant, only useful for registered keeper Defendants where they were not driving and/or where a parking firm do not use the correct wording/deadlines to hold the keeper liable.

None of that applies in a UKCPM case, if they served a NTK within 14 days.

You need to remove the word Preliminary which can't be planted in the middle, now. And re-number all paragraphs to follow consecutively. You have 1.2.3. then you go back to #1 at the moment.

And

3.1 I'd

Eeek, no slang or abbreviations of accepted written English, in a court defence! Not only that, you need to remove 'me' and 'I' throughout, and change to 'The Defendant'.

Denji11

Take 3.... Thanks again all who have read and responded thus far


Theres a section I am unsure of where I feel it kind of repeats. After point 6 its stated to strike out the claim then goes on into more reasons, should this be merged into one?



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Background
1. The defendant was issued a PCN notice by the claimant on xxxx at xxxxx.
2. The private parking area in which the claimant manages looked like a public parking area as no clear parking signs were visible.
2.1 There were other vehicles parked around the defendants which blocked the view of the sign.
2.2 This is evidently visible by the way the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle had been left yet it still did not block any public walkways or cause any disruption.
3. The parking sign on display was relatively small and particularly difficult to read from the distance the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked at, particularly as a motorcycle rider through a helmet the specific details would have been difficult to read if the sign was at all visible.

4. 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;
4.1 !!!8220;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 !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; 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 landowner!!!8217;s 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.!!!8221;

5. 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. Inadequate signage details no parking outside of a designated area / parking bay - yet none are defined. 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 have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

5.1 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):
5.2 Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example !!!8216;Money owed £1000!!!8217;,
5.3 Those which are incoherent and make no sense,
5.4 Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

6. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

6.1 The defendant refers the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and the defendant also points out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
6.2 There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.
6.3 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
6.4 The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

The defendant, XXXXX, in this matter was the rider of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage.

(2). The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
2.1 The Claimant has disclosed no specific cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2.2 The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
2.4 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 !!!8220;parking charges!!!8221; 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.
(3). The claimant!!!8217;s inadequate signage detailed information which was not true as of the private parking area where the charge was incurred.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
(4). 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 !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;
4.1 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 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.

(5). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
5.1 I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

(6). UK Car Park Management 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.
6.1. 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.
6.2 The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
6.3 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

(7).
7.1 The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed 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.
7.2 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.

(8). The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the rider
8.1 The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, particularly through a motorcycle helmet.
8.2 The sign is in such a position that!!!8217;s easily blocked by other vehicles. When the defendants vehicle was parked there were other vehicles surrounding it which blocked the visibility of the sign.
8.3 The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to !!!8216;validly display!!!8217; the ticket in the windscreen, this is again in particular for a motorcycle, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant
contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
8.4 In the absence of !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
8.5 The signage displayed information which was incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant.

(9) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
9.1 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 contractbeen properly displayed and accessible.


(10)
10.1 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 !!!8216;local!!!8217; recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs)
10.2 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 sign.
10.3 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.
10.4 The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
10.5 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
10.6 Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
10.7 The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.

(12). The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, the defendant is keeping a note of any wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

(13). The defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

The defendant believes the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

Your numbering seems to go from 1 to 6.4 and then there are a few un-numbered paras, and then starts again at (1) and this time increasing to (13).

Denji11

KeithP wrote: »

Your numbering seems to go from 1 to 6.4 and then there are a few un-numbered paras, and then starts again at (1) and this time increasing to (13).

Yes this is the area im talking about where the numbering starts again after the following statements:

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

The defendant, XXXXX, in this matter was the rider of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.


should I just remove these and continue the numbering in a sequential manner and put these back in at the end?


The bottom seems to repeat itself as well with these statements:

(12). The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, the defendant is keeping a note of any wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

(13). The defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Just confused slightly around where to break the defence up, as in introduction/bakground, then arguments, then conclusion/final statements?

Thanks again all.

Coupon-mad

Your numbers must be sequential, per paragraph, or if talking about the same thing (such as signs) you can break up one point like this:

1

1.1.

1.2.

1.3. etc

It isn't hard to work out that your statement must have numbers that are unique to each paragraph otherwise how is the Claimant to refer to a point you made ('we refer to the second point #3, not the first #3 in the defence' doesn't work, does it).

Denji11

Hi All,

Take 4 now, thanks again for the assistance thus far.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Background
1. The defendant was issued a PCN notice by the claimant on xxxx at xxxxx.

2. The private parking area in which the claimant manages looked like a public parking area as no clear parking signs were visible.
2.1 There were other vehicles parked around the defendants which blocked the view of the sign.
2.2 This is evidently visible by the way the defendant’s vehicle had been left yet it still did not block any public walkways or cause any disruption.

3. The parking sign on display was relatively small and particularly difficult to read from the distance the defendant’s vehicle was parked at, particularly as a motorcycle rider through a helmet the specific details would have been difficult to read if the sign was at all visible.

4. 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;
4.1 “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 landowner’s 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.”

5. 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. Inadequate signage details no parking outside of a designated area / parking bay - yet none are defined. 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 have 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:

5.1 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):
5.2 Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £1000’,
5.3 Those which are incoherent and make no sense,
5.4 Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

6. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

6.1 The defendant refers the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and the defendant also points out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
6.2 There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.
6.3 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
6.4 The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

7. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage.

8. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
8.1 The Claimant has disclosed no specific cause of action to give rise to any debt.
8.2 The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
8.3 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.


9. The claimant’s inadequate signage detailed information which was not true as of the private parking area where the charge was incurred.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
9.1. 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.’

9.2 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient 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.

10. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
10.1 I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

11. UK Car Park Management 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.
11.1. 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.
11.2 The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
11.3 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

12. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed 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.
12.1 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.


13. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the rider
13.1 The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, particularly through a motorcycle helmet.
13.2 The sign is in such a position that’s easily blocked by other vehicles. When the defendants vehicle was parked there were other vehicles surrounding it which blocked the visibility of the sign.
13.3 The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen, this is again in particular for a motorcycle, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant
contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
13.4 In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
13.5 The signage displayed information which was incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant.
14. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
14.2 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 contractbeen properly displayed and accessible.

15. 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 ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs)
15.1 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 sign.
15.2 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.
15.3 The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
15.4 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
15.5 Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
15.6 The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

16. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.

17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, the defendant is keeping a note of any wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

18. The defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.

The defendant, XXXXX, in this matter was the rider of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The defendant believes the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th August, you need to have done the Acknowledgement of Service by 2nd September.
Please confirm that you have done the AoS.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th September 2018 to file your Defence.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Coupon-mad

which says;
4.1 '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 landowner’s 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.'


11.1. 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.
11.2 The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
11.3 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

I would remove the repetition like the above.

There are more things like that - prune them!

Denji11

Hi all,

Take 5 now and thanking you all again for taking the time to read and respond to me.

A quick concern I do have is that I am away for the next three weeks from Thursday with very limited access to an internet connection. If I manage to send off the defence prior to leaving will there be anything after IE the Directions Questionnaire that will need to be acted upon promptly ? (ie. within the three weeks)


Defence below:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Background
1. The defendant was issued a PCN notice by the claimant on xxxx at xxxxx.

2. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the rider
2.1 The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, particularly through a motorcycle helmet.
2.2 The sign is in such a position that’s easily blocked by other vehicles. When the defendant’s vehicle was parked there were other vehicles surrounding it which blocked the entire visibility of the sign.
2.2a This is evidently visible by the way the defendant’s vehicle had been left yet it still did not block any public walkways or cause any disruption.

2.3 The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen, this is again in particular for a motorcycle, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
2.4 In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
2.5 The signage displayed information which was incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant whereby there were no parking bays at all visible.
2.6 The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
2.7 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.
2.8 The private parking area in which the claimant manages looked like a public parking area as no clear parking signs were visible and with other vehicles parked without clear tickets displayed.

3. 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;
3.1 “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 landowner’s 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.”

4. 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. Inadequate signage details no parking outside of a designated area / parking bay - yet none are defined. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4

5. 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. 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:
5.1 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:
5.2 Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £1000’,
5.3 Those which are incoherent and make no sense,
5.4 Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant


6. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:
6.1 The defendant refers the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and the defendant also points out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
6.2 There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.
6.3 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
6.4 The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

7. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage.

8. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
8.1 The Claimant has disclosed no specific cause of action to give rise to any debt.
8.2 The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
8.3 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.

9. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
9.1. 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.’
9.2 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient 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.

10. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed 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.
10.1 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.

11. 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 ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs)
11.1 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 sign.
11.2 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.
11.3 The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
11.4 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
11.5 Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
11.6 The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

12. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.

13. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, the defendant is keeping a note of any wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

14. The defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.

The defendant, XXXXX, in this matter was the rider of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The defendant believes the facts contained in this Defence are true.