Gladstones County Court Claim

Dredd786

Defence amended from a well known source.. is this enough? what am I missing?


CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Halifax Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company Halifax Car Park Management Limited at Westgate Car Park, Horton Street, Halifax, HX1 1PU, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; XXXXXXX. These assertions 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.

4. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breech of terms of parking’. 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.

The breech referred to by the Claimant relies upon their own data being wrong from the outset as the ANPR data of VRN’s and Ticket Machine Log data captured are not validated with each other automatically or manually concludes that either the system or business model or both are unfit for purpose or a hidden strategy to ensure maximum profit. The DPA states that personal data is 'inaccurate' if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact

5. 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.

6. 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. The signage is in a faded state and displayed in a colour scheme not recommended, without any illumination; with additional signage posted over 7ft high - It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, 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 written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


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.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Halifax

Do you mean HX? You must get the Claimant's company name right.

Remove this which is pointless:

8. The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Dredd786

I have amended and removed the text as suggested, thank you. The form is now complete with full details

The form I have saved as a .pdf then opened this up in Adobe and used the Sign feature to digitally sign the document, saved again.


Do I just need to submit the defence or do I also need to send in the Witness statement and supporting evidence as well?

Whats the next step please?

Redx

email the signed and dated pdf to the CCBC as an email attachment

read posts by KeithP that tell you the exact details as he posts them every day on here , he even told you what to do in post #2 above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DO NOT attach any WS or evidence, as they are needed by your local county court, NOT by the CCBC who are just a government office in Northampton

the CCBC is not a court


ps:- there are spelling mistakes in the defence above


I suggest you post your amended defence below, for further checking

Dredd786

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company Hx Car Park Management Limited at Westgate Car Park, Horton Street, Halifax, HX1 1PU, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; XXXXXXX. These assertions 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.

4. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breech of terms of parking’. 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.

The breech referred to by the Claimant relies upon their own data being wrong from the outset as the ANPR data of VRN’s and Ticket Machine Log data captured are not validated with each other automatically or manually concludes that either the system or business model or both are unfit for purpose. The DPA states that personal data is 'inaccurate' if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact

5. 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.



6. 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. The signage is in a faded state and displayed in a colour scheme not recommended, without any illumination; with additional signage posted over 7ft high - It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, 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.



Name XXXXXXXXXXXX



Signature





Date 12 January 2019

Redx

thanks


now run a spell checker over it because there are a few spelling mistakes as I said earlier

for a start , there is only one E in breach

also, in post #1 you said a ticket was bought and paid for by the driver for 3 hours of parking

if that is correct, then the driver DID form a contract with HX , because they bought and paid for and received a parking ticket which is normally displayed on the windscreen and is a proof of contract (a receipt for payment)


so how can you state that no contract was formed with the driver ?

Dredd786

Thanks Word is not picking up the spelling mistake, do I amend that to no contract was formed with the registered keeper or do I need to start over on that argument and replace it with?

Dredd786

replace it with

4. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

?

Dredd786

Hi

can anyone advise on the suggestion below please?

thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Obviously it's right because breach is spelt 'breach'.

You spellchecker won't have picked it up because 'breech' means a breech baby!