County court claim help

wp123

so far this is what I have for my defence.

1)It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
(i) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(ii) the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable

4) the claimants representatives have artificially inflated the value of the claim and I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the claimant but are figures picked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

5) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
These ‘robo-claims’ are against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.

6) The claimant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support

7)It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

8) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.





I am trying to avoid putting in anything I cannot prove and so have avoided anything with regards to signage as I cannot prove it wasn't sufficient without taking a drive to Bradford.

I would like to further stress the abuse of process especially with regards to how they got to the sum they did.
I am searching through threads for a good wording for this but if anyone has suggestions on this particular point they would be gratefully received.

do I need to suggest the difference between this case and beavis versus parking eye? I have seen it included in a few defences but mostly ones from a few years ago so not sure on its relevance
this leads on to my next point which I am unsure of. the inclusion of point 3

I was reading up on lord Dunedin's four principles as I saw it mentioned on another thread but got lost in an article that I truly couldn't understand but seems to say this has been changed?

I thought still important to include something regarding the fact it is a penalty but I may be heading up the garden path here.

thanks again for all the help. I would be truly lost without all the information ive found on this forum

Le_Kirk

3) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Check out why not to use this (sometimes shortened to GPEOL) by searching the forum. It is an old ploy.

wp123

KeithP wrote: »

To expand upon what I wrote in post #4:

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

1) Print your 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 chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

all done! thanks for your help so far

Coupon-mad

I hope you removed this:

3) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
(i) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(ii) the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable

...read the forum a bit more, and replaced it with something (ANYTHING) that put them to proof about their signage? Did you not realise that many people here get tickets from holidays etc and cannot go and revisit the car park, and they never have to!

Pretty much everyone defending any PPC claim must mention the 'sparse' or 'unseen' non prominent signs. YOU MUST attack signage, it's the basis of the contract.

wp123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I hope you removed this:

...read the forum a bit more, and replaced it with something (ANYTHING) that put them to proof about their signage? Did you not realise that many people here get tickets from holidays etc and cannot go and revisit the car park, and they never have to!

Pretty much everyone defending any PPC claim must mention the 'sparse' or 'unseen' non prominent signs. YOU MUST attack signage, it's the basis of the contract.

I did indeed remove this followed le_kirks advice and read around its why I put in my post I wasn't sure about this bit of the defence

I didn't put anything in about signage as I thought I would need to prove about the signs and as the driver has no reccolection of it I thought this could go against me in court. it had to be sent off by today so I sent it before bed last night so that I didn't miss any deadline

presumably I can't add to this defence now?

KeithP

wp123 wrote: »

presumably I can't add to this defence now?

That's right, you can't - unless you are prepared to pay £255 for the privilege.

Coupon-mad

I thought I would need to prove about the signs

The burden rests with the Claimant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities - you've just made it easier for them.

Your defence is so devoid of facts about why you are not liable/what you defence actually is, you are in danger of having it struck out but you can't alter it now.

That is not a defence that we would have recommended. Not a forum defence.

At least you have denied any relevant contract:

It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

...which just about gets a foot in the door to talk about signage in your Witness statement later, to try to rescue this.

Nowt you can do yet, please read the NEWBIES thread for what happens when.

wp123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The burden rests with the Claimant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities - you've just made it easier for them.

Your defence is so devoid of facts about why you are not liable/what you defence actually is, you are in danger of having it struck out but you can't alter it now.

That is not a defence that we would have recommended. Not a forum defence.

At least you have denied any relevant contract:

...which just about gets a foot in the door to talk about signage in your Witness statement later, to try to rescue this.

Nowt you can do yet, please read the NEWBIES thread for what happens when.

I really thought was doing the best I could but thats just annoying on my part that I didn't realise that. hopefully ill be able to bring it up in witness statement but we shall see

do you think im in an un-winnable position here? if I am and should be attempting to settle then would be good to know.

as ive said previously this is a difficult one as to be honest ive no idea what im appealing this on other than the fact that the fine is excessive and the rules on private parking are nonsense

wp123

should add I received their directions questionnaire and am just waiting on mine

Coupon-mad

do you think im in an un-winnable position here?

Never, I am a cup half full person, always have been.

But that wasn't a forum defence so we are now helping you rescue it.