PCN - Portswood Centre, Southampton // Claim Form - CC Business Centre (Northampton)

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't go with that.

Here's some wording to add at the end, also written by bargepole about asking for 2 claims to be heard together:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75613167#Comment_75613167

EDIT - THERE IS NOW A TEMPLATE DEFENCE AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM.

NevTheDog

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:!

Britannia Parking Group LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at Portswood Centre.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant, was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

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. Further to which, the time alleged was after 8pm during winter months when it would have been dark and therefore any signage would have been less prominent.

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 additional £50 for which no calculation or explanation is given and an added interest at 8.00% to the total. However the right to do this only applies in business-to-business transactions. A company cannot claim statutory interest if their customer is a consumer and not acting in the course of business. In such scenarios, a company can only claim interest if the contract sets an interest rate. And no evidence of this has been provided. The facts above therefore appear 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.

10. The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXX and XXXXX, against the Defendant at or around the same date, and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


Does this look okay? I have just added a couple of lines to barge poles defence

Le_Kirk

If you are going to make the point about signage being less prominent at 8.00 pm it might be an idea to mention that the signs were unlit. thereby making them not just less prominent but impossible to see. This assumes you are defending as driver, if you are defending as keeper, then the driver told you this!

Otherwise, if it covers anything/everythin the PPC allege in their (sparse) particulars, should be OK to use.

NevTheDog

If I am defending as keeper like Lamilad would it be better to leave out completely?

KeithP

What? You mean not mention the signs at all?

That is not a good idea.

Perhaps say something like "after receiving the NtK, as the keeper, the Defendant visited the site at the same time of day as the alleged incident, and it was clear that the signs are virtually invisible due to non-existent lighting".

But that detail is probably best left for the Witness Statement.

Coupon-mad

Surely a random £60 has been added as well as £50, yet you didn't mention it?

NevTheDog

Hi All,

Just thought I would let you know that both claims have been struck out as an abuse of process.

“It is an abuse of process for the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.”

Thanks all for your help!

KeithP

That's good to hear.

Which court? Southampton County Court?

The Claim number, the date of the Order and the Judge's name would be good to know, as it might be useful for others to cite.

FineForWhat

Did you win in court or were they cancelled before hand?

KeithP

FineForWhat wrote: »

Did you win in court or were they cancelled before hand?

Despite reading this thread earlier today, NevTheDog has apparently decided that neither your question nor mine are worthy of an answer.