Help with IAS Appeals process

shawon007

Thanks for the advice.


Can I not simply file my defense via MCOL? There is an option on there for filing a defense.


I'll start researching and produce a defense and (hopefully) get feedback before submission from helpful members such as yourselves.


Thanks again.

KeithP

shawon007 wrote: »

Can I not simply file my defense via MCOL? There is an option on there for filing a defense.

Re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out why that isn't advisable.

I am only suggesting one way of filing a Defence - note the words 'could' and 'suggested' in there. It is entirely up to you how you achieve the objective.

And there is no 's' in defence.

shawon007

Hi Guys,


I have a draft defence below. Can you please let me know what you think?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In The County Court[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Claim Number: XXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]-and-[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]XXXX (Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]DEFENCE[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1. The defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle with registration number XXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £75.00, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3. 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. The Claimant’s signage was not displayed under adequate lighting thus not being legible in absence of sunlight.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4. 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.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5. The terms on the Claimant’s signage was contradictory to the terms of the other signage in the car park. The first signage that is read from a vehicle entering the car park states the parking charge is £1 while the only other signage states the charge is £100. The Claimant admits that the signage is incorrect / vandalized. It is, therefore, denied that the contradicting nature of the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
6. 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true. [/FONT]

KeithP

Have you challenged all the accusations made in the Particulars of Claim?

There is nothing in that Defence about what the claim is all about.

shawon007

Unfortunately I have left the Claim Form at work so hopefully will check that tomorrow.


Off the top of my head I think it was claimed that the the driver / keeper of the vehicle reg XXX was parked at location XXX at date / time XXX. Due to this the terms of parking was accepted but the defendant failed to pay the parking charge.

shawon007

OK am at work now and have the claim form to hand. It states:

"The driver of vehicle reg XXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signs (Contract) and XX on XX, thus incurring the parking charge. The PCN wasn't paid in 28 days of issue. The claimant claims the unpaid pcn from defendant as driver / keeper of vehicle. Despite demands being made, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding liability. Claimant claims £100 for PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms, together with statutory interest of £16 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts act 1984 at 8% per annum continuing at 4p per day."

My defence is based on the fact that due inadequate signage, there was no contract. Is this OK?

waamo

shawon007 wrote: »

OK am at work now and have the claim form to hand. It states:

"The driver of vehicle reg XXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signs (Contract) and XX on XX, thus incurring the parking charge. The PCN wasn't paid in 28 days of issue. The claimant claims the unpaid pcn from defendant as driver / keeper of vehicle. Despite demands being made, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding liability. Claimant claims £100 for PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms, together with statutory interest of £16 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts act 1984 at 8% per annum continuing at 4p per day."

My defence is based on the fact that due inadequate signage, there was no contract. Is this OK?

The added £60 is an abuse of process. There is a lot about it on here. Some courts are throwing out claims pre hearing for it. You need to include that.

Redx

The defence should address the charges like the additional £60 , this is covered in other defences and the CEC16 thread , plus the abuse of process thread too (as Waamo kindly points out above)

Your defence should address the background so a judge knows what the dispute is about , so should address those POC as mentioned by KeithP

Plus no landowner contract (which is not even mentioned at all), signage etc , legal points and rubbishing their claim in a legal fashion , if it's forbidding signage with no consideration to park , there is no contract , nothing there about the CRA 2015 from what I can see

So to me it doesn't address all the issues that other defences against ukcpm have raised , it's too sparse , lacks crucial details etc

Are you sure you have read recent and completed court cases on here ? There are plenty of good examples , do the research , because you must write it and understand it if or when asked in court.

Your defence needs more substance , so I would be scouring the successful court cases on here for nuggets , easy to do , put a well known hit record by Queen into the forum Search box

AOBTD

Redx

shawon007 wrote: »

11th November 2019.


By the way its Gladstones that is claiming against me.

No they are not

The claimant is UKCPM , not Gladstone's

shawon007

OK I've added a reference to the inflated sums claims in point 2 of my defence:


---

2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60.00, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

This is further supported by many county court Judges striking out cases in recent months without a hearing due solely to adding 'damages' that the claimant cannot justify.

In claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the county court at Southampton, struck out a overtly inflated (over £100) parking firm claim without hearing for that reason.

In claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor struck out the claim as an abuse of process.

DJ Grand stated: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.”,

According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs f the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

---

I cannot verify the claims numbers for details of the 2 past cases, does anyone if the public is able to see details of county court hearings and judgements of past cases? If so, where is this information?