Claim form received, advice needed please!

Coupon-mad

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).

I can't see where that defence talks about #1?

doughboy2000

Coupon - point number 5 of the defence.

doughboy2000

Nos - good point, proof it wasn’t a passenger, thanks!

doughboy2000

Hi guys, here is an updated defence. Plan is for defendant to defend as registered keeper not the driver. Any feedback to this is appreciated, thanks. (Maybe this differs from the usual defence because there is no ticket, it's a must not leave site while parked one)

DEFENCE

1. The facts are that the Defendant is the registered keeper and 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 show video or photographic evidence that the Defendant entered the site boundary alone in the Vehicle.

6. The Claimant is put on proof to provide video or photographic evidence that the Defendant left the site boundary whist the Vehicle was parked within the site boundary.

7. The Claimant is put on proof to show that whilst the Vehicle was within the site boundary no persons from the Vehicle entered the Lidl store.

8. The Claimant is put on proof to show that whilst the Vehicle was within the site boundary all persons from the Vehicle were outside the site boundary.

9.. 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. The Claimants signage does not display the site boundary. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating legally binding contract

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

KeithP

doughboy2000 wrote: »

Plan is for defendant to defend as registered keeper not the driver.

Yet the first line of your Defence says:

doughboy2000 wrote: »

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

???

Coupon-mad

doughboy2000 wrote: »

Coupon - point number 5 of the defence.

I think you should deny that all occupants of the car left the premises and deny that the boundary of 'the premises' is shown anywhere to define what they mean, given that there are two businesses there.

Don't say where the occupants of the car went (neither in the defence nor on this forum). But think about the uncertainty of that sign.

Does walking into the Travelodge for 10 minutes suddenly make a person a non-Lidl customer, and therefore needing a permit?

What if they then go in Lidl during the 90 minutes? They will have stayed on site the whole time but could have got a PCN at the start?

What if the driver goes into the Travelodge whilst the passenger goes into Lidl...permit needed? Who knows.

doughboy2000

Thanks Keith, will update.

Coupon - Thanks for your help. I'm thinking that if they have photographs of a person from the vehicle leaving the premises (?) that doesn't mean a) they were the driver and b) that someone else from the car didn't go to Lidl and remain on site even if one person did leave site. Do you think all persons need to stay on site? The sign only says Lidl customers? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Exactly what I meant.

I would think the same as you, so you can deny that the occupants of the car left the site (whatever 'the site' may be, given there is no boundary defined in the terms) and put the C to strict proof.

Even if they have a photo of someone walking somewhere, so what?

doughboy2000

My court date is just a few weeks away now. Is there a collection of statements made in Parliament about PPC's? Can't seem to find anything..

Umkomaas

doughboy2000 wrote: »

My court date is just a few weeks away now. Is there a collection of statements made in Parliament about PPC's? Can't seem to find anything..

Read the lot here:

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

Don’t forget to come up for air now and then!