Help! Have followed advice so far...but worried

Umkomaas

Each paragraph should be numbered sequentially, even those (currently unnumbered) that feed from the numbered main paragraph.

Your final paragraphs are presently numbered 9, 10 and ...... 9!

Lotuslady

Ok, thanks for spotting that Umkomaas...will do...

Just to clarify then it is the paragraphs that are numbered then, not the separate points of defence (which is how I had numbered my defence)
If so, is this for ease of reference to each paragraph if it does go to court (helps me to understand why..)

Redx

Lotuslady wrote: »

Ok, thanks for spotting that Umkomaas...will do...

Just to clarify then it is the paragraphs that are numbered then, not the separate points of defence (which is how I had numbered my defence)
If so, is this for ease of reference to each paragraph if it does go to court (helps me to understand why..)

correct , each and every paragraph has a separate number , for easy reference in court

edit it once more (plus you still have two number 9, which will disappear in the renumber)

Lotuslady

Ok thanks Redx for clarifying that, makes sense now..

Lotuslady

Ok here it is.. have removed a few paragraphs as thought I was repeating myself..! Plus added a new point..now point 7 after renumbering..

Also am wondering if to mention that a passenger in the car did not see any signs either (or is this for WS stage?)) also I should point out that this passenger was 16 years of age at the time although now she is 18 years.

All comments gladly appreciated, thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It appears that the Claim relates to a purported debt as the result of a a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXX when it was parked at XXXX

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 in the alleged car park referred to as XXXX by the Claimant.

3. 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. They merely state that vehicles must not be parked outside of a designated area/parking bay and if unsure to please contact CPM for which a premium rate telephone number of 0845 463 5050 is given which is in contravention of the BPA code of Practice (18.6) which states “If you provide a telephone line to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate.”

4. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA code of practice advises operators that they may use APNR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable , consistent and transparent manner. The code of practice requires that the car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by APNR cameras for. This information is not at all mentioned on the Claimant’s signage and the Claimant is therefore in breach of the Code of Practice.

6. No street lighting covers the car park or the signage at the entrance, and no additional lighting has been installed to aid drivers in seeing theses signs.
It is therefore again denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating any legally binding contract whatsoever.

7. The signage displayed within the “car park” itself (seen by the Defendant at a later date than the alleged offence) is not visible to any driver that is parked in the initial 2-3 bays nearest the entrance and hence would not ever be seen by a person leaving their car and walking towards the Co-op shop sited there or the retail park beyond.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.

9. The signage makes no mention of the Claimant’s authority to manage the alleged car park, to issue tickets or to pursue charges to court in their own name

10. The amount claimed by the Claimant is an unconscionable amount and an abuse of process. 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 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given other than it being “contractual costs” and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The amount is also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, schedule 2 “terms that may be unfair”.

11. In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from the Claimant that included a false amount of £60 due to abuse of process.
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.

12. Additionally, District Judge Grand has recently concluded that an additional sum such as the Claimant is seeking to recover is knowingly inflated and and the Claimant is not entitled to recover it (F0DP163T, Southampton Court, 11th July 2019)

13. The Claimant has not followed properly laid down guidelines drawn up to protect consumers regarding the appeal of Penalty Charge Notices issued. The BPA Code of Conduct 22.7 states “We consider it a reasonable timescale to allow 28 days from the issue of the PCN (in whatever format) to allow the driver/keeper to appeal the enforcement action. The Claimant rejected the defendants appeal to them even though it was within the recommended timescale.

14. The Defendant was suffering with PTSD at the time that the Penalty Charge Notice was received and during the lead up to the Claim Form N1SDT being issued by the Claimant. The Notice To Keeper sent by the claimant contained very confusing wording as to the timescales regarding appeal of the Penalty Charge Notice which could easily have been misunderstood. As a result this claim has been exceedingly vexatious from the very outset, having a detrimental effect on the defendant’s mental, emotional and physical wellbeing and overall health. Especially as further “Demand for outstanding Payment” letters were received in the interim.

15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant’s position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused, regardless of whether a Defendant is suffering from a mental health condition or not.

17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

1505grandad

You have mentioned several times "Penalty Charge Notice" - UKPCM cannot issue penalty notices - presumably they are Parking CN.

Coupon-mad

Nice defence example though.

Redx

Agreed , change the word penalty in all cases where it should say Parking , the only time penalty is used is in reference to the Beavis case etc , where it's used as an alternative in order to highlight a legal point, which in this case may mean it's never used

The PCN was a Parking Charge Notice , an important difference. Crucial in fact , so edit once more

DoaM

My observations (not criticisms) are below:

1. relates to a purported debt as the result of a a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)

3. There are also rules about Call Connection Services (including 084 numbers). Might be worth making reference to that too, as it is highly unlikely that the signage specified any call charges.

13. Code of Practice (not Conduct)

13. What do you mean by rejected? Reviewed and disallowed, or did not accept the appeal at all? (Might be worth specifying what rejected means).

General ... Parking not Penalty (as said above).

General ... breaches of the Code of Practice mean that they've breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA? If yes then this point may be worth shoehorning in somewhere?

General ... why are you saying "car park" and alleged car park? Is it a car park or not? (Might be worth spelling this out if it's an important point).

General ... there are some unnecessary ENTER key presses (e.g. 6, 11)

Le_Kirk

In your point 7, you state "alleged offence" it is not an offence,.

7. The signage displayed within the “car park” itself (seen by the Defendant at a later date [strike]than the alleged offence[/strike]) is not visible to any driver that is parked in the initial 2-3 bays nearest the entrance and hence would not ever be seen by a person leaving their car and walking towards the Co-op shop sited there or the retail park beyond.