Defence for court

ZimmermanKlaus

Hi,

I am trying my best to not break any forum rules so please tell me if I manage to, after reading the newbies thread I believe once you have received claim forms I should start a new thread. I have received 2 Claim forms for PCN. I have submitted an AOS for both and then pretty much buried my head in the sand like a fool. I received both on the 25 September, so I still have till the 23rd to complete a defence. I responded to both of the PCN through the company's appeal process, but they rejected both and then I ignored everything that came through the post and have lost anything related to the claim.

Both of the PCN relate to residential parking at my girlfriend’s house. NTC are the company and have put up signs saying that visitor permits must be on display in visitor bays and no parking on the road. My first PCN came when I was parked in a visitor bay and I had a permit on show. They stated that fake permits had been used in the area and ticketed people, the one I was using was a legit permit that they had posted to my girlfriend’s house.

My defence was going to be that the permit was displayed, it was a valid permit and they offered no evidence to prove that it was a fake permit.

My second PCN was for unauthorised parking, all the visitor bays were full, so I parked where I believed to be outside the entrance to the estate where the parking operates. People had been doing this in the past without problem. Then they started ticketing people for it, the land turned out to be part of the estate and not owned by the council as I had believed.

My defence was going to be that the sign at the front makes it looks like it is being enforced inside the estate only and that the road looks like it is owned by the council.

I can try and explain anything in more detail if needed and can provide photos of where I parked and the signs. If anyone could help me put together a better defence that would be fantastic or point me in the direction of other posts like mine.

Thanks in advance

KeithP

You say you received the Claim Forms on 25th September.

What is the Date of Issue printed on those Claim Forms?

When did you do the Acknowledgement of Service on each?

ZimmermanKlaus

Issue date printed on the claim forms is 25 SEP 2018

I responded through the moneyclaim website for the acknowledgement of service on the 3rd of October.

KeithP

ZimmermanKlaus wrote: »

Issue date printed on the claim forms is 25 SEP 2018

I responded through the moneyclaim website for the acknowledgement of service on the 3rd of October.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th September, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th October 2018 to file your Defence.

Longer than you thought. Plenty of time to produce a top class Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

ZimmermanKlaus

Thanks for the information I will follow your recommendations for submitting the defence hopefully I will get more information on how to prepare a decent defence.

Could you clarify why it is until the 29th of October? it says on the AOS pdf the following: If you need 28 days (rather than 14) from the date of service to prepare your defence, or wish to contest the court’s jurisdiction. I take that to be 28 days from the issue date 25 Sept.

Am I misinterpreting what the date of service is? I assumed this to be the issue date. I don't want to come across as not believing you but it would be disappointing to lose by not submitting any defence in time.

KeithP

The Date of Service is five days following the Date of Issue.

You have twenty-eight days from the Date of Service to file your Defence.

If the calculated date falls on a non-working day then you are allowed until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.

But no need to take my word for it, read it yourself in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide.

On page 14 of that document it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue. Please note, if you have served separate particulars of claim then this may affect the deemed date of service (as above).

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).

ZimmermanKlaus

That’s fantastic thanks so much. At least I have some more time to research and try to pull together a defence.

KeithP

ZimmermanKlaus wrote: »

At least I have some more time to research and try to pull together a defence.

Yes, but don't sit back.

ZimmermanKlaus

Ok I have created my defence as best I could for the one showing a valid permit. I used the template from the newbies thread but cannot post a link yet. It was the one by bargepole - A defence by bargepole, showing that a defence about unclear signs should be written concisely:

but I didnt really understand point 3 and the signage is a bit different compared to point 5 so I took them out. If someone could take a look at my defence I would be most grateful.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxx (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 xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to visitors and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. 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.

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.

5. 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.

6. 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 £70.68, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

7. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

ZimmermanKlaus

Ok here comes the slightly trickier one, I have used the template from the newbies thread - and even more concisely here, about poorly marked lines and unclear signs about where to park

Basically the entrance to the estate has 2 walls either side of the road which makes it the assumed entrance. Apparently the land in front of this is also private land. The side of the wall where the car was parked only has one sign with a big P and stating see notices on site for details and terms & conditions apply. Most assumed it was ok to park this side as you cannot see any signs other than the big P. We parked here for a time without problem until the tickets came one day. Hopefully this is clear if not I can get a picture in the morning to post.

Anyway on to the defence, Point 2 is my own writing and is probably in need of the biggest look over.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

1. 2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked behind a sign stating see notices on site for details, this would indicate that the land before this sign is not part of the site and therefore the terms & conditions do not apply. I believe that this part of the land has now indeed been passed to the council as was planned.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

ZimmermanKlaus

Was hoping to get these sent off today as running low on time. If anyone has the chance to look through would be most appreciated.