Court Papers here - Defence Help Please!

crxvt

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You have up to 33 days from issue, but don't push it that close.

That signage is almost non-existent! You don't need your pics at defence stage, however.

That draft defence is a waffly and generic one. I'd be spending the time reading the other defence examples in the NEWBIES thread. Only yesterday I added two very concise defence links there, to ones written by bargepole which are less than half the words you;ve used and are about lack of clear signs.

Have a look and try to improve the clarity of the defence & remove the waffle.

I have just had a look to try and find the posts you were referring too, however only lets me see you last 300 posts until the 27th! would appreciate if you could drop me a link or give me some search terms to find the suggested posts. Thanks

tboo

You're not seaching CM's posts you go to the NEWBIE thread and look at the 2 new links posted by CM there re lack of clear signs

Coupon-mad

your last 300 posts until the 27th!

LOL, I post too much on my days off, when bored!

See what tboo said above, you are not searching through my posts.

The whole point is for you to read ALL the advice & defence examples in the second post of the NEWBIES sticky thread, so you are well-informed & know what happens when (not just pluck a defence out from a link from a black hole, then think that's your only job until the hearing!). Clue - it's not, but it's easy enough when you know what to do when.

crxvt

Massive thank you already so far! Ok I have taken out a lot of the waffle and looked at bargpoles defences, please see below.

Appreciate some guidance on this:

the motor vehicle was in X person’s name and Y person was driving. X person is the registered keeper. X person is not going to be able to go or hold up in court. Y person is much better place and was the driver. The claimant only wrote to X person. should i be adding this in? how to we make this clear to the court? Is there any further paragraph I should include in the defence?


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

2. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed area, the Vehicle was parked on the curb that was not inside the area marked out by pole and chains. the defendant was unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.


3. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.

4. The only sign was attached to the building. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking where my vehicle was located as the building has its marked territory via poles and chains. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate permit requirement or how to obtain one, or the charge itself.


5. 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.

6. 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 need to stand directly in front of a dangerous access ramp with poor visibility. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. 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.


8. 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, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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.

10. The Claimant may attempt to rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, however, the only similarity with this case is the fact that in Beavis it was also a '2 hours free' car park. By contrast, here, the signage is inadequate, so no contract was capable of being agreed, there is no 'commercial justification' or legitimate interest, and the Claimant has failed to either identify the driver, or comply with the POFA to enable them to rely upon the only statute or rule allowing 'keeper liability' on private land.


Thanks in Advance!

Coupon-mad

X person is the registered keeper. X person is not going to be able to go or hold up in court. Y person is much better place and was the driver. The claimant only wrote to X person. should i be adding this in? how to we make this clear to the court?

You don't.

X person MUST defend it and must attend the hearing, but Y person can go with them as a witness, and maybe - if you have someone in mind - Z person (a confident family member) can also go too, to speak for X person as their 'lay rep'.

NONE of this is said at defence stage, only that X was not the driver.

When X person gets the DQ N180 (next form) they put witnesses - 2 (them and Y).

curb

is American! NO.

kerb

is English. Please spell kerb correctly (my DS had no clue either).

Why does the defence not say at the start that the D admits being the registered keeper but denies that they were the driver on the material date ?

The first thing in a defence is to admit or deny what the Particulars say.

In fact I've just noticed you have wrongly implied the D was driving:

the defendant was unaware that the site was 'private land'

No, the DRIVER was unaware...

bargepole

crxvt wrote: »

6. 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 need to stand directly in front of a dangerous access ramp with poor visibility. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

That access ramp again!

It's good to see that people are now using a more concise and relevant defence than the previous load of twaddle, but the bit about the access ramp was specific to a particular case I advised on.

It has now cropped up in two further defences, but should only be in there if such a ramp actually exists at that location.

Umkomaas

Nice to see everyone copying and pasting, and thoroughly reading through fully and understanding what they are using in their defence, in order to answer any question thrown at them by a Judge, otherwise it is simply no more than a copy and dump, spray and pray job.

Judge: 'Can you tell me how the access ramp relates to your case?'

Defendant : 'Not sure Sir, but it was on MSE, so I copied it and included it in my defence!'

Game Over.

Coupon-mad

bargepole, can you possibly change the template (as the original user doesn't need that bit any more, not on the forum anyway) to say:

and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would need to stand directly in front of it, looking up several feet above their head.

...or whatever you think is more generic?

I also noticed in one example of a concise defence I linked in the NEWBIES thread, the word 'proprietary' had a typo. Not sure if it's the same defence template.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

bargepole, can you possibly change the template (as the original user doesn't need that bit any more, not on the forum anyway) to say:

...or whatever you think is more generic?

I also noticed in one example of a concise defence I linked in the NEWBIES thread, the word 'proprietary' had a typo. Not sure if it's the same defence template.

Done, Now changed to a more generic version.

Couldn't find the post with the typo, but that's probably because I searched on 'proprietary',

Coupon-mad

Here you go, I remembered it featured the word 'pie'!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74674865#Comment_74674865

Post #24.