Gladstone & UKCPM county court claim

Lauz44

I have been holding off, hoping the SAR information would come through however it hasn't and this needs to be submitted in 2 days. I would very much appreciate any critique, especially with regards to the wording of paragraph 2. I've had several drafts but the more threads I read, it was suggested keeping it brief is best and I can expand in my WS. My defence is below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:
BETWEEN: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant applied for and paid the land owner directly for a month long parking permit on the 12th XXX 2018 prior to the PCN being issued on the 13th (same month) 2018. Instructions for the purchase and issue of the permit from the land owner stated “upon receipt of a completed parking agreement (copy attached) and your fee, your parking permit will be issued to you immediately”. With no further instruction regarding displaying or issuing of the permit, and due to the lack of clarity regarding the timeframe of receiving the permit, a note was displayed on the car dashboard (see image 1) explaining a valid permit had been purchased. Therefore, as a valid parking permit was applied and paid for pertaining to the vehicle in question prior to the PCN being issued, and the vehicle owners details available to the company at that time, it is argued no losses were incurred by the land owner, which forms the basis of the current claim. For the aforementioned reasons, it is argued that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

3. At the time of submission of this Defence, no information has been received from a SAR made by the Defendant to UK Car Parking Management, submitted on the 6th March 2019. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, and non-compliance of the Claimant with the Pre-Action Protocols, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

6. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Very good so far. You need some points saying that:

- Even if the Claimant is relying on a purported contract flowing from signs at the location, such terms were not prominent and were never seen by the Defendant, failing Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. Any signs were not 'adequate notice' of the claimed parking charge and nor did the Defendant know about, or agree to by conduct or otherwise, any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' (ref: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4).

- The Defendant knew nothing about any risk of a further charge, having paid for ''immediate'' permission and parked in good faith, relying upon the prior agreement made with the landowner, concluded by the application and payment of the sum agreed as a licence to park for the dates stated.

- This Claimant offered no consideration to the Defendant, since there was nothing of value that the Defendant did not already possess from the promise made by the landowner of permission and a licence to park 'immediately'. Nothing was mentioned about a paper permit being required, nor about any penalty risk, nor even that signage on site formed part of that contract and must be read/complied with before parking. This Claimant was not even a party to the parking licence, thus they are a stranger to the contractual permission the Defendant relied upon and they could not, as a third party, bolt on new terms to the promise of the 'immediate' parking licence agreement.

- It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

Lauz44

Wow, thank you Coupon-mad! Should I use these as separate points or expand on the points I’ve made (other than the last sentence). Thank you ever so much for taking the time to help, it’s very much appreciated.

Lauz44

Hoping to submit this today.
Final draft:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:
BETWEEN: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant applied for and paid the landowner directly for a month long parking permit on the 12th XXX 2018 prior to the PCN being issued on the 13th (same month) 2018. Instructions for the purchase and issue of the permit from the land owner stated “upon receipt of a completed parking agreement (copy attached) and your fee, your parking permit will be issued to you immediately”. With no further instruction regarding displaying or issuing of the permit, and due to the lack of clarity regarding the timeframe of receiving the permit, a note was displayed on the car dashboard (see image 1) explaining a valid permit had been purchased. The Defendant knew nothing about any risk of a further charge, having paid for ''immediate'' permission and parked in good faith, relying upon the prior agreement made with the landowner, concluded by the application and payment of the sum agreed as a licence to park for the dates stated. Therefore, as a valid parking permit was applied and paid for pertaining to the vehicle in question prior to the PCN being issued, and the vehicle owners details were available to the company at that time, it is argued no losses were incurred by the landowner, which forms the basis of the current claim. For the aforementioned reasons, it is argued that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

3. Even if the Claimant is relying on a purported contract flowing from signs at the location, such terms were not prominent and were never seen by the Defendant, failing Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. Any signs were not 'adequate notice' of the claimed parking charge and nor did the Defendant know about, or agree to by conduct or otherwise, any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' (ref: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4).

4. This Claimant offered no consideration to the Defendant, since there was nothing of value that the Defendant did not already possess from the promise made by the landowner of permission and a licence to park 'immediately'. Nothing was mentioned about a paper permit being required, nor about any penalty risk, nor even that signage on site formed part of that contract and must be read/complied with before parking. This Claimant was not even a party to the parking licence, thus they are a stranger to the contractual permission the Defendant relied upon and they could not, as a third party, bolt on new terms to the promise of the 'immediate' parking licence agreement.The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

5. At the time of submission of this Defence, no information has been received from a SAR made by the Defendant to UK Car Parking Management, submitted on the 6th March 2019. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, and non-compliance of the Claimant with the Pre-Action Protocols, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

7. In summary, it is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. The Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Remove this as the PCN is not about 'loss':

and the vehicle owners details were available to the company at that time, it is argued no losses were incurred by the landowner, which forms the basis of the current claim. For the aforementioned reasons,

And separate this as your #5 and move the rest up a number:

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

Lauz44

Thank you. All amendments made. I'll print and scan this in now.
Final draft (I hope):

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:
BETWEEN: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant applied for and paid the landowner directly for a month long parking permit on the 12th XXX 2018 prior to the PCN being issued on the 13th (same month) 2018. Instructions for the purchase and issue of the permit from the landowner stated “upon receipt of a completed parking agreement (copy attached) and your fee, your parking permit will be issued to you immediately”. With no further instruction regarding displaying or issuing of the permit, and due to the lack of clarity regarding the timeframe of receiving the permit, a note was displayed on the car dashboard (see image 1) explaining a valid permit had been purchased. The Defendant knew nothing about any risk of a further charge, having paid for ''immediate'' permission and parked in good faith, relying upon the prior agreement made with the landowner, concluded by the application and payment of the sum agreed as a licence to park for the dates stated. Therefore, as a valid parking permit was applied and paid for pertaining to the vehicle in question prior to the PCN being issued it is argued that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

3. Even if the Claimant is relying on a purported contract flowing from signs at the location, such terms were not prominent and were never seen by the Defendant, failing Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. Any signs were not 'adequate notice' of the claimed parking charge and nor did the Defendant know about, or agree to by conduct or otherwise, any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' (ref: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4).

4. This Claimant offered no consideration to the Defendant, since there was nothing of value that the Defendant did not already possess from the promise made by the landowner of permission and a licence to park 'immediately'. Nothing was mentioned about a paper permit being required, nor about any penalty risk, nor even that signage on site formed part of that contract and must be read/complied with before parking.

5. This Claimant was not even a party to the parking licence, thus they are a stranger to the contractual permission the Defendant relied upon and they could not, as a third party, bolt on new terms to the promise of the 'immediate' parking licence agreement. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. At the time of submission of this Defence, no information has been received from a SAR made by the Defendant to UK Car Parking Management, submitted on the 6th March 2019. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, and non-compliance of the Claimant with the Pre-Action Protocols, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

8. In summary, it is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. The Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

This is supposed to be part of #4:

This Claimant was not even a party to the parking licence, thus they are a stranger to the contractual permission the Defendant relied upon and they could not, as a third party, bolt on new terms to the promise of the 'immediate' parking licence agreement.

Lauz44

Revised:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant applied for and paid the landowner directly for a month long parking permit on the 12th XXX 2018 prior to the PCN being issued on the 13th (same month) 2018. Instructions for the purchase and issue of the permit from the landowner stated “upon receipt of a completed parking agreement (copy attached) and your fee, your parking permit will be issued to you immediately”. With no further instruction regarding displaying or issuing of the permit, and due to the lack of clarity regarding the timeframe of receiving the permit, a note was displayed on the car dashboard (see image 1) explaining a valid permit had been purchased. The Defendant knew nothing about any risk of a further charge, having paid for ''immediate'' permission and parked in good faith, relying upon the prior agreement made with the landowner, concluded by the application and payment of the sum agreed as a licence to park for the dates stated. Therefore, as a valid parking permit was applied and paid for pertaining to the vehicle in question prior to the PCN being issued it is argued that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

3. Even if the Claimant is relying on a purported contract flowing from signs at the location, such terms were not prominent and were never seen by the Defendant, failing Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. Any signs were not 'adequate notice' of the claimed parking charge and nor did the Defendant know about, or agree to by conduct or otherwise, any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' (ref: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4).

4. This Claimant offered no consideration to the Defendant, since there was nothing of value that the Defendant did not already possess from the promise made by the landowner of permission and a licence to park 'immediately'. Nothing was mentioned about a paper permit being required, nor about any penalty risk, nor even that signage on site formed part of that contract and must be read/complied with before parking. This Claimant was not even a party to the parking licence, thus they are a stranger to the contractual permission the Defendant relied upon and they could not, as a third party, bolt on new terms to the promise of the 'immediate' parking licence agreement.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. At the time of submission of this Defence, no information has been received from a SAR made by the Defendant to UK Car Parking Management, submitted on the 6th March 2019. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, and non-compliance of the Claimant with the Pre-Action Protocols, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

8. In summary, it is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. The Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Lauz44

Submitted my defence via email as advised by Bargepole above. Do I need to do anything further on MCOL? I can’t progress passed the ‘defence - defence particulars’ page as I haven’t entered anything in it and just concerned this appears as though it’s not completed. I know to keep logging in to check it says ‘defended’.

KeithP

Nothing more to be done on MCOL - other that making the check that you mention.