Claim Form Defence Help

ScamFighter

Hi All
new to this forum and need some help writing my defence for PCN received last year and now a claim form from a private parking company.
Background: PCN received last year for overstaying in a car park location monitored by the private parking company, didn't register my vehicle on site due to poor reception service received in visited location.
PCN charge notice received which is 14 days over, photos of car reg entering and leaving the location.
Total claim amount = £338.78
i did email them back, although admitted it was my car parked in the location, but never admitted being the driver.
did appeal to POPLA but was unsuccessful,
I did ignore all the letters after from the private parking company, their fake dept collectors and solicitor letters.
Now i received a court claim form signed by the private parking company and already done the AOS online and in the middle of typing my defence at the moment.
The defence is unfinished at the moment
Just need to mention: the absurd fees, totalling £338,
summary, sign and date it at the end
I Would be grateful if my defence draft so far can be checked
i have kept most of the details hidden just in case of revealing something which i shouldn't:
My unfinished Defence Draft so far, please check and advice
Date, location, car reg, claim number, name of claimant and defendant are hidden:

In The County Court

Between: Claim Number: ******

************(Claimant)
-and-
******** (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle ***** on Date in Location.
The Defendant denies the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed for the following reasons:

2. The claim form issued on the Date by claimant was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction because the claim does not have a valid signature signed by a legal person. It states that it has been signed by claimant as the claimant’s legal representative. The Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a legal person holding a senior position and state their position. The legal representative may sign the statement of truth in their own name and not that of the firm or employer. It states, claimant does not have a legal representative and is a litigant in person.


3. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (this is stated in the new Pre Action Protocol for Dept Claims, 1st October 2017 and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, parking can be for trespass, breach of contract or 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 alleged contract has never been provided to the defendant.

4. The defendant admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle on Date but puts the claimant to full proof that the defendant was the driver. Without proof, the defendant denies any liabilities as the registered keeper, as the claimant failed to meet the notice to keeper obligations of schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms Act 2012. The PCN exceeds 14 days of the parking event and even if it had been served in time, it did not fully comply with required statutory wording, only a speculative invoice entitled Parking Charge Notice was sent to the defendant outside the 14 day period, strict compliance with the requirements of schedule 4 is required if the keeper is to be liable. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking time or the driver not being a visitor of Location.

5. It is denied that the claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Claimant.

a) Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. It is to be believed that the claimant do not have authority to issue charges on this land in their own name.

bargepole

ScamFighter wrote: »

Hi All
new to this forum and need some help writing my defence for PCN received last year and now a claim form from a private parking company.
Background: PCN received last year for overstaying in a car park location monitored by the private parking company, didn't register my vehicle on site due to poor reception service received in visited location.
PCN charge notice received which is 14 days over, photos of car reg entering and leaving the location.
Total claim amount = £338.78

This needs reworking.

Paras 2 and 3 will not be fatal to the claim.

Para 5 - it is likely that they do have authority from the landowner.

Para 4 - Relies on the fact that the driver has not been identified. But when in court, the Judge can simply ask "Well, were you driving or not?". Failing a satisfactory answer, he can simply make a finding of fact, on balance of probabilities, that you were driving.

All of which leaves you becalmed in a stretch of dark brown water, without any means of propulsion.

Your opening paragraphs should set out the facts of what happened on the day. If you were driving, say so, and go into some detail as to why you were unable to enter your reg no. in the terminal at reception - this will be one of your main defence arguments.

Also look carefully at the signage, which is the means by which any alleged contract is formed. Were the terms clearly stated in an unambiguous way? Does the signage make an offer of parking capable of acceptance by drivers, or is it an attempt to create a forbidding contractual term?

ScamFighter

Like to apologise for the duplicate post, I did post this thread on the main motoring section by mistake at first then re posted in the right forum section, sorry for the confusing.

Thanks bargepole for checking my draft and advise,
i'm going to re work the defence again by taking your advice on board.

Question:
Even if the judge asks me if i'm was the driver or not, cant i still argue that when the PCN was issued the private parking company just assumed the registered keeper was the driver without the keeper directly admitting it, only stating that his car was parked there and he visited.
can i still argue without strict proof the parking company still issued a PCN exceeded the 14 day limit by their own assumption of who the driver was at the time?
Even if i lose the case in court hearing, the amount of the claim £338.78, is too much, isn't the maximum they can charge is £100 or so. they just added extra costs, legal representative cost, admin cost and signed their own company name in the claim form?
Your right, its likely they have landowner authority, but cant i argue why they are using their own name to claim the charges when the land is not owned by them?
The signage clearly states only parking for 1hour and obtain a free pass at reception, but doesn't explain how to obtain a free pass in reception, and the reception staff weren't helpful, the signage itself was posted around the sides of the area not in the car park by the vehicles.
there was no windscreen ticket, hidden cameras which only take pictures of vehicles entering and leaving without the driver knowing,
there has been a lot of complaint already about it, trip advisor, newspaper articles etc

I would be grateful if you can if you can advise me on the best defence template to use for this case.