Minster Baywatch / Gladstones Unpaid Charge

Coupon-mad

The facts are whilst using the car park situated at XXXX we incured a "Parking Charge", the alleged offence was "Vehicle was not authorised to use the car park". It is denied that any contract was agreed or offered in prominent large lettering which resulted in the Defendant believing the Car PArk was Free to use.

That's fine but it needs a number for the paragraph. Maybe better to make it #7 as it fits in nicely after the bit where you say in #6 that the signs were unlit & sparse.

Vjr7411

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No:


BETWEEN:



-and-
(Defendant)



DEFENCE


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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXX car park on XX/XX/XX.

3.The Particulars of Claim do not specify the legal basis upon which the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

5. 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 small 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.

6. The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore illegible in poor natural light in any event.

7. The facts are whilst using the car park situated at XXXX we incured a "Parking Charge", the alleged offence was "Vehicle was not authorised to use the car park". It is denied that any contract was agreed or offered in prominent large lettering which resulted in the Defendant believing the Car Park was Free to use.


8. Due to the sparse details on the 'PCN' (taken to be a scam piece of junk mail, since it did not come from any Authority or the Police and arrived weeks later) and the equally lacking and embarrassing Particulars of Claim (POC) and the complete lack of any Letter before Claim, this Claimant afforded the Defendant no opportunity to take stock, obtain data, copy letters, and images of the contract on signage. There has been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.

9. 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.

10. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

Vjr7411

So I'm all good to submit that then?

Redx

yes , get it signed and dated as per the advice by KeithP and save as a pdf and email it to the CCBC office as an attachment, following the KeithP advice on page 1

then bone up on the next stages by reading the BARGEPOLE info , plus what KeithP said

Vjr7411

Thanks all that have helped.

Vjr7411

Hi all,

Received the questionnaire from Gladstones and also one I have to fill in.

Le_Kirk

OK, back to the NEWBIE section post #2 to see how you fill it in and where to send it.

Vjr7411

Receieved a letter from the court this morning titles, "General Form of Judgment or Order".

Basically asking me if I want to use the defence already submitted or to submit new amended defence.

KeithP

Vjr7411 wrote: »

Receieved a letter from the court this morning titles, "General Form of Judgment or Order".

Basically asking me if I want to use the defence already submitted or to submit new amended defence.

That's unusual. I wonder why they have said that?