County Court Case - Help Needed

Redneck61

1234567890

Coupon-mad

Why have you got this (below) if you told us it was a small car park with corners?

parked on the material date on a public road, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.

Also why have you copied stuff in 5 (etc.) about passing a gate?

I did say it's your job to make it make sense for your case. None of the above does.

Redneck61

Hi there coupon-mad

Forgive me for not changing everything, I’m really bad with this and that’s what I needed help with on what to write for the points that I didn’t change.

Could you advise me on what I could write for the points you said baring in mind it was a small car park with no lighting. Thanks

Coupon-mad

If you could just remove what makes no sense, we might be able to see the woods for the trees.

It is obvious not to talk about gates and public roads in your case, so don't copy it. You don't need us to tell you that, this is basic detail to prune out and is nothing special, nothing to do with defences nor parking law.

It's just things that make no sense for your own case, you can see that as clearly as we can.

Show us a new version without that, and with 'unlit signs' and it was 'pitch black'.

Redneck61

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 XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date at the XXXXX Car Park.

2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe 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.

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 car park was was completely unlit with no light on the signage at all, nearby street lights helped to see the road at most. With no means of seeing the signs at night it is questioned whether they were even there.


5.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.3. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beaviscase is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient propietary proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. The POFA, 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.

8. 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.


(statement of truth and signature and date go here)

Redneck61

How does this sound? I removed all the unnecessary things that weren’t related to my case and added at part about it being unlit.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Point 5, you have a repeated "was" otherwise it looks like a concisely written defence a la Bargepole.

Redneck61

Thank you very much guys I’ll get that submitted tomorrow using the method you told me. I just had a question about statement of truth...

Will that just be me simply stating that I declare that everything that I have written is to my knowledge the truth etc..? Then of course signing and dating it.

Coupon-mad

You can either Google 'defence statement of truth' to find the words, or simply find an example in the NEWBIES thread of a defence showing it (there are loads).

Redx

Redneck61 wrote: »

I just had a question about statement of truth...

Will that just be me simply stating that I declare that everything that I have written is to my knowledge the truth etc..? Then of course signing and dating it.

that is the essence of what it means when you write that sentence , yes

the BARGEPOLE examples have it at the bottom, before the signature and date , so its a simple copy and paste, but by signing it you are stating that it is the truth, like when you swear on the bible etc