Parking Eye Court Claim Form - Please help

hurtbuyer

Step 9: Defend all
Do not contest jurisdiction this is if you live outside of the UK courts and want your local court authority to be used

I am a bit confused by what this means. Defend all is fine. But should I contest Jurisdiction. I obviously live in the UK.

Coupon-mad

Do not contest jurisdiction if you are in England/Wales.

I assume you are only doing the Acknowledgement of Service.

hurtbuyer

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do not contest jurisdiction if you are in England/Wales.

I assume you are only doing the Acknowledgement of Service.

Thank you very much - very timely indeed as I am doing the AoS now.

hurtbuyer

AoS now done.

Coupon-mad

OK, so now work on your defence over the coming weekend or week, and show us your draft.

hurtbuyer

Hello All

A development. We have been to the parking zone in question. Now there is an in/out to a fairly large main staff parking area off the main street that runs within the hospital campus and that clearly indicates that the parking is for staff only where my wife is allowed to park. My wife went in through this. But a perpendicular junction leads to the little car park where my wife got done (only about 10-12 spaces). The entry to that is from another side and the entry point to that is the only place where there is English signage. The path through which my wife entered is only the exit but does not have any signage to say visitor car park . It does have 'no entry' signs but at a perpendicular angle to the driver going into the staff car park. She was ANPRed going in through there. Not sure how well I have explained it but I feel we have strong grounds to argue poor or no signage at all. Is this likely to stand? If so, I have written the following defence based on bargepole's recommendation on another thread.

***********************************************

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Parking Eye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date, however the driver was the defendant's wife XXXXXXX. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter is that the Defendant's wife is an employee at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and has continued to hold a valid staff parking permit for the university hospital car parking for the last X years. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small piece of poorly marked ‘private land’ having parking spaces located amongst a much larger staff car park (for which the defendant's wife's parking permit is valid). Further the piece of land in question is joined into the main staff car park's entry/ exit at a perpendicular crossing and the signage is such that it shows that it is part of the main staff car park inside. There is no signage whatsoever indicating that it leads to a visitor parking area on the left. The English signboard upon turning from the main hospital street into the parking area in English clearly says that it is a staff car park. The defendant's wife is not a Welsh speaker or reader but the word 'staff' is clearly seen within the Welsh signboard stating that the car park is for staff. Both the sign boards are yellow and white which are the colours for staff car parking zones. There are no blue and white visitor signs whatsoever at the point of entry. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a hospital employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3.It is also a fact that the addition of a junction from another car park into a narrow path which leads into and out of a large staff car park, creates a hazard for all drivers and pedestrians using the area where vulnerable patients are frequently walking through.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £75 costs to pursue an alleged £70 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 47 Para 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 £70.

7. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

***********************************************

Coupon-mad

Bump for comments from all, I had no time to look!

hurtbuyer

No one commenting - is it a lost cause

Coupon-mad

No. KeithP and I were probably the only posters on here at gone 2am!

There are NO lost causes on this forum.

hurtbuyer

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No. KeithP and I were probably the only posters on here at gone 2am!

There are NO lost causes on this forum.

I wonder what drives wonderful folks like you to help out people so much :j - I am not trying flattery, I genuinely mean it!

Will wait to get advice.