Business court

waamo

I don't see the point of F. That was about leaving site and has little relation to this case.

You have put H twice.

KeithP

Is there any difference between those two?

You have two paragraphs .

You have two paragraphs C).

You have two paragraphs H).

weatherman89

I will take F out then and the last paragraph H....

Will that be okay to submit?

weatherman89

yes, there is a difference. I think it is an ordering typo.

Anything else I need add or remove before submission?

Redx

A talks about "your pcn"


whose pcn is that ? the claimants ?


in which case its "the claimants pcn"


keep the language as third party , defendant , claimant etc


check all paragraphs for similar errors , and edit your last defence post accordingly , or better still, post the full amended defence below, AGAIN

weatherman89

Here is the edited draft....


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 the claimant’s PCN it is 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.

C) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ;was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant 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.

D). 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.

E). 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.

F). 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.

G). 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).

H). 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.

I). 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.

J).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

KeithP

Paragraph A) needs adjustment:

Spell PCN out in full.

"But you failed to provide..." should be "But the Claimant failed to provide...".

"...where the terminal reception is located" should be "...where the terminal in reception is located".

"I was completely unaware..." should be "The driver was completely unaware...".

"I refer to the IPC Code of Practice..." should be "The Defendant refers to the International Parking Community's Code of Practice...".

weatherman89

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 the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is 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 the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in reception is located because of the insufficient signage. The defendant 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.

C) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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.

D). 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.

E). 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 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. 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.

F). 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.

G). 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).

H). 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.

I). 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.

J).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

KeithP

Oh well, three out of five isn't bad I suppose.


Here's another one:

Para J) seems to be mixing with a Statement of Truth.

weatherman89

KeithP wrote: »

Oh well, three out of five isn't bad I suppose.


Here's another one:

Para J) seems to be mixing with a Statement of Truth.

I don't understand 'mixing with a statement of truth'...However, I don't think it changes anything if I take it out altogether?