Bw legal letter of claim

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd May, you have until Wednesday 22nd May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence 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 "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.

Coupon-mad

Claimant is KBT CORNWALL LTD.

Yes indeed, same as the other KBT Cornwall defences posted this week - I really hope newbies like you are reading similar threads to learn from them too?

Jb93

No I haven’t seen these, but I will be sure to have a read. I have been reading a lot of other defences today and have got a lot of changes I would like to add to mine. I will use some Mor time it get mine as good as I can.

Coupon-mad

I'm amazed so many people don't first of all search or scroll through the forum posts and read all the threads that match theirs from this week.

We have batches of cases all the same and everyone posts as if it's new! Don't get me wrong, we know it is new to you (and that's why we are here for you) but there are other KBT Armtrac cases here with tons of advice posted this month alone.

I have been reading a lot of other defences today and have got a lot of changes I would like to add to mine. I will use some Mor time it get mine as good as I can.

Good, that will give you confidence, now search the forum for the word Armtrac.

Jb93

So I have been doing a lot more reading and have come up with this as my defence does this look better than previous ?

Thanks in advance


COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

(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 XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at 1-5 Wesley Street Camborne.

3. The vehicle was parked at this location for 15 minutes while dropping something to a resident of the area and to the Defendant's local knowledge, this is a site that never required a permit. A permit was not displayed because there were no clear indications given to the Defendant to believe that a permit was required.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

5. The allegation appears to be that the 'driver fails to display a permit' based on images by from Armtrac Security Services who manage the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle parked in said location and is not evidence of length of stay and any signage indicating that a permit is required.


6. 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.

7. 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.

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

9. Furthermore, signage is not lit at night, the defendant was parked in the evening making the signs even more unreadable. The defendant will provide evidence of this.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

Jb93

So I have been doing a lot more reading and have come up with this as my defence does this look better than previous ?

Thanks in advance


COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

(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 XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at 1-5 Wesley Street Camborne.

3. The vehicle was parked at this location for 15 minutes while dropping something to a resident of the area and to the Defendant's local knowledge, this is a site that never required a permit. A permit was not displayed because there were no clear indications given to the Defendant to believe that a permit was required.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

5. The allegation appears to be that the 'driver fails to display a permit' based on images by from Armtrac Security Services who manage the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle parked in said location and is not evidence of length of stay and any signage indicating that a permit is required.


6. 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.

7. 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.

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

9. Furthermore, signage is not lit at night, the defendant was parked in the evening making the signs even more unreadable. The defendant will provide evidence of this.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

Le_Kirk

Well it looks like one of the concise defences in the NEWBIE section post #2, so should be OK. Might be worth weaving in the fact that the car was not parked but was loading/unloading, in case you want to include it in your witness statement further along in the process.

KeithP

You haven't said, but have you done the Acknowledgement of Service?

Remember...

KeithP wrote: »

...you have until Wednesday 22nd May to do the Acknowledgement of Service

That's today.

Jb93

Yes I have done my AoS

Le_Kirk

Phew, as advised by KeithP in post # 11, defence required by June 5th.