County court defence help

KeithP

A forum glitch last year.

This is what it should look like:

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)". 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.

robfitch8

Updated response below, please let me know if you have any further recommendations,

THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS (Claimant)

-and-
(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 xxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at Waddon retail Park, Croydon.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)". 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.
A. Whilst the defendant followed the claimant and the BPA appeals processes and have evidence the claimant received the appeal and also requested additional information from the defendant (which was supplied).
When the defendant then chased up the appeal, the claimant later claim they couldn’t find the appeal even though the PCN number was supplied.
B, After another email from the defendant, the claimant suddenly communicated that the defendant lost my right to appeal and no further correspondence would be entered into.
C. The defendant had not received an appeal outcome or Popla reference to follow the BPA code of practice of which total parking is a member, even when the defendant requested their Popla reference it was ignored by total parking solutions.
(See below BPA code of practice)
22.2 whenever you issue a parking charge notice motorists must first use your procedures for resolving appeals, before being able to refer them to an independent appeal service. You must tell motorists at what stage the independent appeals service becomes available.
22.12 If you reject an appeal you must:
• tell the motorist how to make an appeal to IAS. This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and a valid 10-digit verification code. Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in a prominent position on the first page of the rejection letter. • give the motorist a reasonable amount of time to pay the charge before restarting the collection process. We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from the date you rejected the challenge.
C, Any following communication via email was ignored, and when question to the claimant about what happened with the appeals process was disregarded and calls terminated with no explanation.

5. 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.

6. 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 entrance signage to the retail park doesn’t communicate or physically mention that ANPR Cameras are in use at the retail park,

7.
a) 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 they are not obvious upon entry to the retail park, also 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.
b) The signage displayed at the entrance to the retail park by the claimant was not fit for purpose, by not only being located on the wrong side of the road for drivers entering the car parking making it nearly impossible for any driver at peak times, to attempt to read the sign from a vehicle as it is normally blocked by vehicles queuing to exit the car park . The sign at the entrance to the car park should be clearly visible to all vehicles that enter and also state that ANPR cameras are used at this site.
There is alternative car park signage in the car park but wasn’t obvious/readable from my parked location. Car park signage font is below the required sizing. Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet.


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.
a) 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 £70.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £104 legal representative costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £129 costs to pursue an alleged £70 debt.
d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £104 "legal representative costs’’ not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

10. 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'

KeithP

In both the paragraphs 4B, there are two of them, you are still using the first person.

robfitch8

I think I have spotted both of those and updated, above

KeithP

But para 4C still uses the word 'I'.

robfitch8

KeithP wrote: »

But para 4C still uses the word 'I'.

DOH :T tired :-(

sorted

Molts

B, After another email from the defendant, the claimant suddenly communicated that the defendant lost my right to appeal and no further correspondence would be entered into.

"my" to "the" ;0)

There is alternative car park signage in the car park but wasn’t obvious/readable from" my" parked location - Para 7(b)

Molts

Thanks for all the help with this peeps - this is my friend's Son. So glad I referred him to your excellent forum!

Good effort and good luck RF8!

Wait for any final comments and submit well before close of play on Monday as per Bargepoles recommendations from the link I sent you.

Coupon-mad

Molts wrote: »

Thanks for all the help with this peeps - this is my friend's Son. So glad I referred him to your excellent forum!

Good effort and good luck RF8!

Wait for any final comments and submit well before close of play on Monday as per Bargepoles recommendations from the link I sent you.

Glad to hear this, Molts. The more people who fight back, the better.

RF - that defence looks fine if you've changed all the 'I's to the Defendant.

robfitch8

Thanks guys for the help, submitted last night .