Received over 10 tickets, need help!

missyjingles

Thank you so much coupon-mad, defence has been edited and I will submit today.

Redx

can I suggest you copy and paste it below as well ? , in case others are following this thread and need it for their own case, so they can crib from it

it will also help people understand what is going on from here onwards in your own case too

missyjingles

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

XXXXXXXXXXXX (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date, allocated to XXXXXXXXX at XXXXXXX.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXXXXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) XXXXXXX. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, 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.

4. 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.

5. The defendant rented a room with off street parking in good faith at the said location. The landlord failed to supply a parking permit, the defendant requested one repeatedly. After a period of 10 weeks an eviction notice was served at the address as the landlord was not the landlord at all and was illegally sub-letting the rooms. All the tenants were evicted and all deposits were lost.

6. There are eight outstanding tickets which the defendant has requested to be amalgamated and served one claim. However, this claim does not include all eight, this is escalating costs and wasting the court's time.

7. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor were there any road markings to indicate any parking bays.

8. 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.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case for three PCNs, a maximum of £300 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.

10.1. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £654.27, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

10.2. It was held in the Supreme Court in!Beavis!(where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, nor 'indemnity costs if applicable', whatever that cut&paste phrase may mean. The Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors who charge little or no fee to IPC members, given the connection between Gladstones and the IPC Trade Body, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by IPC/Gladstones' clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

11. 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 are true.

XXXXXXXXXXX


Signature




Date

missyjingles

update:


everything has been ticking along, filled in DQ months ago, today received Claimant's Witness Statement and the court date is set for this month 20th June.

KeithP

...and how is your Witness Statement ticking along?

Don't overlook that, will you? When is your WS due?

Coupon-mad

You sound like you need to re-read the NEWBIES thread about WS & evidence stage!

missyjingles

oh my days!!!! totally missed the WS, thought I had everything done. Just checked the notice of allocation and it needs to be delivered no later than 14 days before the hearing, so the 6th June.


I have found the necessary info on the Newbies thread which I am reading through now.

Coupon-mad

Phew, nice catch, KeithP! :T

missyjingles

Just working through all the print outs required, quick question;


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"(e) a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Should I print off the whole pdf file or just the wording under the section 'Keeper Liability'?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I couldnt find anything titled 'Understanding Keeper Liability' or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
[/FONT]

missyjingles

Is it ok to post my WS here so far (with details omitted) and some queries I have?