Motorbike County Court Claim - Charge Notice

LenaWoods

No it's not my real name

KeithP

LenaWoods wrote: »

One was issued - 03/01/2019
the other - 31/12/2019

I've already acknowledged both as 'Defend all of this claim' and 'contest jurisdiction'

Why did you contest jurisdiction?

That aside...

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st December, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th February 2019 to file your Defence.


With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 5th February 2019 to file your Defence.


That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a good Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defences should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

nosferatu1001

You ha ve 33 days from date of issue to get the defence to the court
This will be in an email, as a PDF. Libreoffice or many free PDF converters will do this for you,s o there is no impediment.

Get reading POST TWO of the newbies thread for an EXAMPLE of how defences are laid out.

Do you live outside of E&W? If so then you shoudl contest jurisdiction. Otherwise you shouldnt do so. Luckily you havent made too bad an error, as without a formall application within 14 days the court will ignore that check box.

LenaWoods

Thanks for your help.... my Dad told me to contest jurisdiction, thinking it meant contest the claim we didn't really understand what it meant....

Are there any links to defense templates with legal standards available for motorbikes or people that have been in similar circumstances to me?

I don't fully trust myself writing the defense without dropping myself in it or messing something up

Thanks for your help

waamo

LenaWoods wrote: »

Thanks for your help.... my Dad told me to contest jurisdiction, thinking it meant contest the claim we didn't really understand what it meant....

Are there any links to defense templates with legal standards available for motorbikes or people that have been in similar circumstances to me?

I don't fully trust myself writing the defense without dropping myself in it or messing something up

Thanks for your help

The last link in the post by KeithP is what you want. It takes you to a thread dedicated to beating tickets. Scroll down to the second post in that thread.

Le_Kirk

LenaWoods wrote: »

Are there any links to defense templates with legal standards available for motorbikes or people that have been in similar circumstances to me?

You've probably now seen the post by nosferatu telling you where to look - he posted only one minute before you - by jove he's quick

waamo

Have you done a SAR on the company? That might show if you are on any kind of "whitelist".

Umkomaas

Don't dig hole deeper than the one you are already in, by using any form of untruth. Have a read of this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/fiona-onasanya-guilty-labour-mp-speeding-charge-lying-police-latest-old-bailey-a8691006.html

LenaWoods

Here's my first draft.... not sure if it's any good? I feel like it should be re-shuffled maybe? I really don't understand point 3 or 4, so not sure if i need to remove that either?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services 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 of the matter are that the Defendant is a resident of XXXX and holds valid permits for vehicle parking on the land surrounding the private car-park. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim has absolutely no boundary markings and consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked parking spaces, following an unmarked road. The unmarked road is located amongst land forming a much larger, council monitored parking area (for which my parking permits are valid) and is therefore indistinguishable. The vehicle mentioned above was parked outside of any marked bays within the actual ‘carpark’ area further along the road, and was not obstructing any vehicle or property at any time. Given the lack of clarity regarding where this car-park actually begins, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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. 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. 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. The sign merely states to ‘display a valid permit inside the front windscreen of your vehicle at all times’. This contract cannot therefore apply to motorbikes as they do not have an enclosed ‘windscreen’ to display the permit on and are open bodied, which means even if a permit is displayed, several external forces will lead to it easily becoming removed, without any fault of the registered keeper.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is far too small to be read from a passing vehicle, or from the distance the registered vehicle was parked, 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.

7. 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.

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 £85, 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

That's a good start.

The claim includes an additional £85,

Is that all, are you sure the total (bottom right of the claim) is £185? I doubt it.

How about a point about the Defendant's primacy of contract, and the terms of the lease that mean you already had a right or easement to park within the development, like this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75235516#Comment_75235516