Help with defence for court claim

robby29

I have updated the draft slightly hopefully this has improved. I have not included the Elliott vs loake case as I am not sure if this is relevant as this was classed as a lie.

DEFENCE

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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’ by the driver. 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 when parking at Southampton- New Road Barnardo Gardens on 13/04/2018 at 10:04

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; Peugeot under registration xxxxxx. 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. consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

4.The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.

5. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

6. Futhermore the claimant has confirmed via letter dated 06th February 2019 that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the claimant is pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”, as the claimant is not relying on (POFA) liability can not be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and the claimant can only pursue the “Driver”, as the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to purse me as the “Registered Keeper”, and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect.

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 Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

9.1 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.


10. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

11. The Claimant may try to rely on Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453..However the vehicle is not registered to the Defendant as a company vehicle and there is no Employer liability holding the Defendant liable for the actions of the Driver.

12. The defendant has not received any notice from Britannia Parking relating to this (PCN) whatsoever. I would suggest there should be solid evidence of this notice been sent i.e (recorded delivery, tracking details, proof of postage) to show this has been delivered to the defendant’s current address which is xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, The defendant moved to this address on 23/04/2018, 10 days after the (PCN) issue date.
13. 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.

robby29

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The defence is good but has 'me' and 'I' several times. Always have 'the Defendant'.

You main defence should be about the contravention, so what do they mean by 'not displaying a valid ticket? What happened?

Coupon mad do i need to add the above in?

robby29

Does this look worthy enough of now being submitted as my defence?

robby29

Will submit this at the weekend if anyone would be kind enough to have a quick look and let me know if this looks good enough or if I need to remove or add anything. Thanks

KeithP

You still have nearly four weeks before your Defence is due. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by rushing it.

I would suggest leaving it a little while for comment, maybe bumping the thread now and again if no-one notices it.

Coupon-mad

2 parking fines from Britannia parking on the same day for not displaying a valid ticket on the 13/04/2018.

How can you have got 2 x PCNs about the same day. What happened?

robby29

By the looks of it 2 different times on the same day.

Coupon-mad

They can't do that, not unless you removed a windscreen PCN and then another ticketer didn't realise and re-issued one.

Even then, these scams normally restrict tickets to one per 24 hour period, or day, otherwise they could issue several in a day, every hour!

robby29

It shows one entering the car park at a certain time and leaving via anpr and then a hour or so later it entering and exiting again is that not valid?

Coupon-mad

And staying for how long each time?