Just received Letter of Claim

trotbot

I might also add that the "Details" in post #29 are just the points I intended to include, not my draft.

trotbot

D'oh... Beat me to it CM, sorry.

Coupon-mad

That's fine, see what you can draft.

Edna Basher is used to 'company Defendant' cases as his company gets hundreds of PCNs, so if he posts, do take his advice.

Just had a thought, the company also need to add something debunking CPS v AJH Films Ltd, so search the forum for those words & see a defence kicking that 'law of agency' idea into touch, if the driver was not on company business.

Needs a place in your defence too.

trotbot

Thank you again CM.
I should add that it was an out of hours social meeting - pork pie making, yes really! Rather than official company business. Although as if to complicate the matter further, the event was on company premises.

I will complete a draft as soon as possible.

trotbot

Defendant
Address Line 1
Address Line 2
Address Line 3

County Court Business Centre
4th Floor St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH

7th October 2018

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Total Parking Solutions Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXX XXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

DEFENCE

---

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Notice to Hirer was not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraph 13/14, so the named hirer firm cannot be held liable.

3. It is denied that the Defendant is 'driver and/or registered keeper, the Defendant is neither.

4. Should the Claimant attempt to rely on an improper citation of the irrelevant case of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd, or an assumption using the law of agency, the fact is that the occupants of the cars caught that evening were enjoying a social get together ('pork pie making') in their own time with family members. The driver was not on business, nor acting 'on behalf of' the business in any way, so there is no rule of law that can be twisted to hold the Defendant liable.

5. It is denied that the signage can be seen at all, let alone read in the dark. Video footage and photographic evidence has been gathered to support this. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The car park in question serves several shops, all except KFC were closed at the time of the alleged offence. KFC were suffering supply chain issues at this time and as a result were out of chicken.

7. BWLegal, the Claimant’s legal representation, letter dated 11 September 2018 states: "Their client's cause of action is that Defendant breached the terms and conditions of the contract which the Defendant entered into by parking the vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay & Display Ticket (PDT)." - The car park in question is not and has never been a Pay & Display car park.

8. The car park was 70% empty when the driver arrived and departed so there was no legitimate interest in operating intrusive ANPR surveillance 24/7.

9. There are two Pay & Display car parks in close proximity to this car park that are free to use after 18:00 every day. If restrictions on this car park were known and/or clearly presented, the Driver would not have chosen to park there.

10. The car park has been used by various parties known to the defendant for years, never noticing any signage suggesting there are time restrictions, so this must be a new regime not properly signed in accordance with the BPA CoP.

11. Three other work colleagues parked in the same car park that evening oblivious to any signage claiming timing restrictions. All of whom have received a PCN, so the Claimant is clearly in difficulty with their alleged contract which was impossible to see in the dark.

12. 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 the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Name

Signed: Date:

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


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 your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

trotbot

Thank you Keith,

Yes, the extra time will allow me to write the best defence possible.
Thank you for the extra pointers, much appreciated!

System

and they were out of chicken at this time.

Never seen this as a defence point before.

As defences need to be supported by evidence, unless you can get KFC to confirm this in writing then I'd drop that and any other irrelevant point.

Le_Kirk

Defence [strike]statement[/strike]

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Never seen this as a defence point before.

As defences need to be supported by evidence, unless you can get KFC to confirm this in writing then I'd drop that and any other irrelevant point.

It was in the national papers, IamEmanresu, I recall it was a national issue...so a newspaper article would suffice, not that this seems to be a major point of defence.

To the OP,

DEFENCE STATEMENT

should be

DEFENCE

And you still haven't yet added CPS v AJH Films and debunked it in advance. Here is Edna Basher explaining the case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74700856#Comment_74700856

So you could add as #4, and move the rest down a number:

4. Should the Claimant attempt to rely on an improper citation of the irrelevant case of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd, or an assumption using the law of agency, the fact is that the occupants of the cars caught that evening were enjoying a social get together ('pork pie making') in their own time with family members. The driver was not on business, nor acting 'on behalf of' the business in any way, so there is no rule of law that can be twisted to hold the Defendant liable.