county court summons

System

Your disparaging comment regarding "free advice" is impolite and unnecessary

But you haven't said whether it is true or not. Or relevant. Only that you have found it not to your particular taste.

Get down and dirty and visit a few courts.

Quentin

Most contributions here are from folk who give them freely, and make no attempt to profit from their time spent here. There is a good record of success here.

What do you want to know is true or not??

mary6157

Hi,

I have read all your replies with thanks and it would seem that my case is weak. There were signs but as they were side on to the parking spaces I did not see them.
I am not sure if it is worth fighting in court?
Regards

Quentin

Put your draft 'csse' up here for comments on its strength or weakness!

mary6157

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay in a public house. The defendant enjoys lunching at public houses and has never known parking not to be free at these sorts of establishments.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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. 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.
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 be unable to do so easily. The signs are “side-on” from the parking spaces and are therefore not clear what they are when driving into a car space. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

mary6157

Hi,
Is anyone able to comment on my draft defence?

Regards