Court Claim Form received - Civil Enforcement Ltd - Defence Letter Review

Rover39

@Coupon-mad / @KeithP,

As suggested, I have prepared the Defence now. Could you please review this and suggest if this is good to be submitted or needs any amendment.

Also, At this moment should I be submitting any proof for my presence in a different city or leave it for later? Please suggest.

Thanks.

---

BELOW

---

In the County Court Business Centre

Claim Number: XXXXX

Between:

Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXX XXXX (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 Defendant, who is the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX, was XXXCITY on DD/MM/YYYY from HH:mm to HH:mm Hrs. Hence, it can be established that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver, Claimant cannot assume the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012.


3. 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.


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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

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


7. 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.


8. 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.


9. 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