County Court Defence

avocalady · 7 February 2019 at 1:43PM

DUPLICATE THREAD - PLEASE IGNORE

Hi,
I posted asking for help a couple of weeks ago & have now drafted a defence. I cannot find my previous thread so don't know if this will link to the old one or if it creates a completely new one (sorry, I'm still new to this). The claim form is dated 10th January and I submitted the AoS on the 17th Jan.

I would really appreciate any comments and help..... do I need to include something about ignoring letters assuming they were spam or is that not necessary?
Thanks.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

ME (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the particulars but it is not know who was driving/the Claimant has provided no evidence in this regard.

Particulars of Claim

3.1 The Particulars of Claim fail to identify a Cause of Action, stating simply that ‘[….monies are due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued….] 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 why the PCN was issued.
3.2 Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's X'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3.3. 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
3.4 In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. The Claimant has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.
Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs

4.1 In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

4.2 The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition.

4.3 In the alternative, it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.

4.4 If the ‘sum of £70 being monies due’ listed in the Particulars of Claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the £70 sum has been calculated, nor the conduct that gave rise to it.

For the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such witness costs for attendance at trial as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.