County court business centre

nosferatu1001

Yeah, its not a great defence. Its poorly laid out, far too long and rs incoherent

Have you had a look at the newbies thread, post two, which has an example defence? That tells you how to lay it out, and how to impose STRUCTURE onto your defence so someone can read it and not give up after, at best, 3 lines.

Coupon-mad

Claim Number: ******

I am ******, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle **** ***. I currently reside at ********.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that

Not the way to start a defence.

It doesn't even have a heading, has sentences in the first person ''I'' and has no paragraph numbers - where are people getting this one from?

Why not find a more recent defence from this week on here. Spend some time on this over the weekend and read the example defences in the NEWBIES thread. That one doesn't cut it.

You've even ended it 'regards'? It looks like a POPLA appeal. No statement of truth and signature/date at the end.

Start again, read the ones on the NEWBIES thread and give us a version of bargepole's defence example instead.

torzie_lee

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defense being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a. There was no compliant “Letter before County Court Claim”, under the Practice Direction
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draft particulars”. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information
c. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about – why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the Letter before County Court Claim I should have received should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction.
3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use for the driver making their own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible on the signs and does not appear at all at the exit , and is not clear on entry is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Please see evidence attached which shows signs from the other 3 car parks in the same area of the town centre. Evidence 1, is a sign from the car park in question managed by UKCPS, evidence 2 is the car park directly opposite which clearly shows a sign big enough to read which states “pay and display” which can also be seen from a distance. Evidence 3 shows a sign from the B & M car park which is at eye level and easy for the driver to read and evidence 4 is from the private car park next to Barclaycard.

In the car park in question, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. There are no signs to the right of the car park itself and there is no sign on exit towards MacDonald’s restaurant.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 defendant asks the Court to note that the Claimant has: sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
7. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Stop looking at POPLA appeals, they play no part in a UKCPS case and do not lend themselves to a properly worded succinct defence. Remove your point #3 which is from a POPLA appeal and is wholly unsuitable for a defence, not least because it says:

Please see evidence attached

But you know (we hope) from reading bargepole's post in the NEWBIES thread about 'WHAT HAPPENS WHEN', that no evidence is attached with a defence, this is not the time for that yet.

So remove the entire point #3 which switches from one thing to another and is not a defence.

also here you go back to the first person, stop putting ''I'':

the Letter before County Court Claim I should have received should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction.
3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that

So once you've removed #3, please add instead, some facts for the Judge to see your defence:

the signs are very small, there are a few down the middle but none on left hand side

You said:

is it worth putting about the weather in my defence or is that stupid?

and nosferatu1001 replied yes, you should, to explain the unreadable terms:

If it genuinely contributed to the signs not being legible, then of course it is not stupid. VIsibility of the signage in plce is absolutely crucial to their claim that they offered a contract.

An so you CANNOT also say this, of course:

The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about – why the charge arose

Yes, you do, so don't say that.

And near the start, remove the stuff about not getting a LBCCC because I expect you did, and binned it, am I right? Replace it with responding to these particulars:

A claim for an outstanding parking charge has been issued against the defendant of the vehicle, reg *******, parked on k**** L***** (The land). The land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd, and signage is present on the land stipulating conditions of parking, that £100 charge will be due for any breach of those conditions , including additional costs if recovery steps are taken. In parking on the land, the driver of the vehicle contractually agreed to be bound by these conditions. The driver of the vehicle parked on **/01/2018 at 14:36, was in breach of one or more conditions. The registered keeper who may have been the driver or alternativly has chosen not to name the driver , is responsible for the charge under shedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012. The parking charge remains unpaid: an additional charge of £60.00 for administration costs (admin, postage, and letters) has been incurred whereby this becomes a commercially justifiable figure.

So you'd be starting by referring to the particualrs of claim and saying thisng like:

- it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle mentioned in the claim

- it is denied that any contract was formed or agreed to pay a parking charge, and it is denied that there are any contractual signs at all or line markings on the road on the left hand side, where it is admitted that the car was briefly stopped (say why it was stopped - loading something? Or parked because the D believed it was unrestricted?).

- Even if some signage elsewhere at this site is produced by the Claimant in evidence, any terms are buried in wordy small print, inadequate, illegible and unlit, and fails to offer any licence to park. So there can be no contract, absent any consideration and agreement flowing between the parties. If it was a matter of trespass - which is denied - that is a matter of tort, only for the landowner to pursue and cannot be dressed up as if there was a contractual offer to park at a price in a place where the Claimant appears to be saying such conduct is in fact prohibited.

etc.

Please forget the POPLA stuff and just show us/the Judge a defence with the facts.

bluetoffee1878

Torzie_Lee,
You know me through my other half at work (she emailed me yesterday about a question you had). The advice you receive here is the best available (especially Coupon-Mad's).

Please follow to the letter what the regulars on here advise you to do.

torzie_lee

Thank you bluetoffee18, ok so few final questions as i have taken the points in consideration and changed the final draft but 1st thing is - do i include about the weather or leave it out? As you said "and nosferatu1001 replied yes, you should, to explain the unreadable terms, then said "An so you CANNOT also say this, of course" and 2nd question is you said to "forget the POPLA stuff" so shall i remove point 6. Thank you x

bluetoffee1878

I would go to town on the signage being unreadable and not prominent. It is their basis for the the forming of a contract with the driver. If the type, design and location of said signage makes it even less noticeable in certain conditions like weather or time of day (darkness) then I think it is worth mentioning.

Don't get confused between POPLA and POFA. If the NTK is not POFA compliant (check this) and you have evidence of such AND you have not told them who the driver was, then the RK cannot be held liable. So it is worth stating this.

torzie_lee

is this any better

In The County Court
Claim No:
Between
UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

.....................(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the claim. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defense being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draft particulars”. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information
b. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.
3. It is denied that any contract was formed or agreed to pay a parking charge on the site in question, where it is admitted that the car was briefly parked, as the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself, so for the driver parking shows as unrestricted.

In the car park in question, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering – or at the entrance, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. There are no signs to the right of the car park itself and there is no sign on exit towards MacDonald’s restaurant. The signs are not lit and in poor weather conditions, this would reduce visibility further. Visibility on the date in question would have been reduced due to storm Georgina with winds up to 90MPH and rain battering the UK.

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 defendant asks the Court to note that the Claimant has: sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
7. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car nearly 10 months later.
8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Loadsofchildren123

I haven't read the defence, I just want to highlight one issue for you.


You rely on poor signage. But in an earlier post you say you got several pcns. So surely you must have realised after the first that something was amiss and you would then have looked for the signs?


This claim is obviously only for one pcn, but other claims will follow and so you need to anticipate the ppc raising this (they're not the most intelligent bunch so they may miss it, but I think you need to avoid the issue and work out how to address it if they do raise it).

torzie_lee

so the point still stands, if something was a miss and i looked at the signs i still cant read it its that small.