Claim form received, advice needed please!

Umkomaas

Just read the sign - illiteracy knows few bounds! Verbatim:

To park within a parent and CHILED bay driver must be accompanied by ATLEST one child UPTO 12 years of age travelling in a CHILD CAR (what's one of those?) or booster seat.

And that's a legal contract?

doughboy2000

Wow never noticed that! Pretty incredible.

Umkomaas

doughboy2000 wrote: »

IamanEmanresu - Pic of the sign is above, it does say about leaving the site

It doesn't actually say anything about 'leaving the site'. It refers to Lidl customers '90 minutes maximum stay whilst on the premises'.

If the driver wasn't a Lidl customer, then that condition couldn't apply to him/her - this would be a trespass case which only the landowner could pursue.

Have you checked with the council whether there were any stipulations attached to planning permission which allowed the use of the car park for access to other retail outlets away from it?

Quentin

doughboy2000 wrote: »

Quentin - why?

A simple y or n will suffice

doughboy2000

Now changed, thanks Quentin

doughboy2000

Umkomaas - sorry only just noticed your post. Interesting spot, thanks. Do you know how to go about finding that out? Is it a phone number or write a letter?

Umkomaas

Tracer phone call to the LA planning department to get an early indication, follow up with an email to seek any confirmation.

If they're a bit evasive, you could send in a Freedom of Information Request. You are legally entitled to the information.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

Umkomaas

doughboy2000 wrote: »

Umkomaas - sorry only just noticed your post. Interesting spot, thanks.

It's 5 days since I made that post. It's a long time to leave between visiting your thread when your case is at a pretty critical stage.

doughboy2000

Umkomaas - I know, everything happening at once at the moment.

AOS has been submitted so now have a further 2 weeks to sort a defence. This is the very rough first draft.

Two main points are:

1. Is there evidence of defendant leaving site other than EPS attendent saying so (cite Parlimianent statements showing how unscrupulous these companies are)

2. Problems with signage (compare to Beavis).

Can anyone advise?

DEFENCE

1. The facts are that the Defendant is the registered keeper and the driver of the Vehicle.

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

3. The particulars of the 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 Course of Action, and is instead offering a menu of choices. As a result, 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. The Claimant is put on strict proof to provide photographic or video evidence that the Defendant left site whist the Vehicle was parked on site.

6.. The Claimants signage is not concise, is laid out in an unclear way and contains grammatical and spelling errors. The Claimants signage is also open to misinterpretation. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating legally binding contract

7. The Claimant is put on strict proof that it has sufficient property 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.

nosferatu1001

You put them to proof that teh driver, and not merely an occupant of the vehicle, left site
You put them to proof that the signs adequately mark the boundary of the site
etc.