Business court

KeithP

weatherman89 wrote: »

And please is it okay to go with POPLA appeal or mine is different?

With a County Court Claim Form, you are well past the stage of considering a PoPLA appeal.

You are writing a Defence. See post #2 of the NEWBIEs thread for guidance with that.

weatherman89

Okay...

Thank you.

waamo

I hate to sound critical because I don't mean it that way when I say you need to start working on your terminology. Using what, to a judge in a court room, is mangled terms such as "defence appeal" looks like you don't have a clue what's going on and are chancing your arm at a defence.

It comes across like you don't grasp that you are at the business end of a court claim. From now on you dance to the courts tune. The only way to stop this is to persuade Parking Eye to back down. Otherwise it's off to court you go.

P.E. Use professional in house solicitors. They will pick up on your lack of knowledge very quickly and see you as an easy target. They will be less inclined to drop an easy target than one who looks like they can put up a half decent fight.

As I said I don't want to sound critical but I think you do need to brush up a bit on court and the process.

weatherman89

I have absolutely no clue about the court and it's process.

This is the closest I have come to anything legal except watching some legal TV dramas for entertainment only.

And it appears so daunting that the thought of paying up is a welcome relief.

Please I need all the help I can get.

I am going through the newbies thread , yet to see a defence that addresses my situation.

waamo

Lack of prominent signage is a defence. If the driver wasn't aware of them they couldn't have been that noticeable.

Personally in the face of a weak case I see no harm in negotiating a settlement. For a claim north of £400 I would call settling for circa £150 a really good result.

Entering a defence buys time to negotiate. You can settle up to the point of walking into the court room. In saying that let's not run before we can walk. It's worth bearing in mind though.

P.E are usually minded to negotiate too.

Coupon-mad

weatherman89 wrote: »

In reading the sample appeal/defence letter, there is part that says parkingeye should provide images etc. The thing is, they actually sent me an image of the car entering and leaving the parking area.

Do I still use that paragraph in my defence/appeal?

And please is it okay to go with POPLA appeal or mine is different?

You've read the first post of the NEWBIES thread, about appeals - why? I did say you are too late to appeal. YOU CANNOT SEND THAT.

I have absolutely no clue about the court and it's process.

And nor do ANY new posters here, yet we help hundreds of people to win. And the post you need is NOT the first post about appeal.

We told you already where to find example DEFENCES, and the second post there also tells you all about the court process.

weatherman89

Thank you very much indeed.

Coupon-mad

Several of the example defences are about not displaying a permit.

weatherman89

Here is a draft of my defence I was able to put together.
please kindly peruse and advise.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1.I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In your PCN you stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But you failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. I was completely unaware of the terminal reception because of the insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

. Furthermore, 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.

The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ;was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however could not ascertain if he was the driver;. This assertion 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.

C). 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.

C). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

D). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

E). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

F). I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell me in person to move on, but failed to do so.

G). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

H)). 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.

H).The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.


Name
Signature
Date


I

weatherman89

Here is a draft of my defence for your perusal.
please kindly advise.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1.I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In your PCN you stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But you failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. I was completely unaware of the terminal reception because of the insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

. Furthermore, 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.

The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ;was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however could not ascertain if he was the driver;. This assertion 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.

C). 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.

C). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

D). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

E). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

F). I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell me in person to move on, but failed to do so.

G). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

H)). 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.

H).The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.


Name
Signature
Date


I