Stuck with my defence

KeithP

MaxSamuel wrote: »

Thanks! One thing I picked up on is the particulars of the claim state "...parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract')" which would suggest that the signage is the contract although on the physical site signage it only says 'Private Land Terms and Conditions' - does this not contradict itself?

What do you mean contradict?

The terms and conditions on the signs are the basis of the contract that has allegedly been agreed between the parking company and the driver when parking.

I don't understand your question.

MaxSamuel

I think I’m just confusing myself with the terminology in the claim particulars versus the signage on-site. In any case do you think the defence is enough to run with? I’m hoping to get it signed and emailed over the weekend.

Umkomaas

13. 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 £240.16.

That won't be the figure quoted on the Notice to Keeper. Check it out, then change the above.

Coupon-mad

would suggest that the signage is the contract

The signs are always the contract, in a private scammer car park.

Your defence looks good, but I am confused as to what you mean by:

The public parking sign

MaxSamuel

This is what I’m referring to imgur.com/a/9PTvoSL

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/9PTvoSL

That mimics a Council sign, and I agree with you, it offers visitors those bays with no caveat, no contract and no chargeable terms.

I wouldn't call it a 'public parking sign' though.

I would say that the driver relied upon a sign facing incoming cars, which stated ''...(quote every word)'' clearly offering visitors those bays with no caveat, no contract and no chargeable terms. If there was another sign with other terms, it was not prominent (not seen at all) and neither were those terms referred to in the prominent 'visitors parking' sign so there was no reason to expect a circumspect driver to seek out more signs. And no lawful reason to conclude that the parking decision and conduct of the driver meant that a charge had been accepted or agreed.

MaxSamuel

Thank you, that all makes sense. I’ll make the amends this evening

MaxSamuel

I've made the amends as suggested, please see below revision:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked VP (Visitor Parking) bay allocated to guests visiting the XXXX housing estate.

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, the terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.

6. The driver relied upon a sign facing incoming cars, which stated ''Visitors, Use Visitor Bays Only'' clearly offering visitors those bays with no caveat, no contract and no chargeable terms. If there was another sign with other terms, it was not prominent (not seen at all) and neither were those terms referred to in the prominent 'visitors parking' sign so there was no reason to expect a circumspect driver to seek out more signs. And no lawful reason to conclude that the parking decision and conduct of the driver meant that a charge had been accepted or agreed.

7. The public parking sign is the only signage facing the road and at a suitable height to be adequately read. On the contrary the Claimant’s signage is facing away from the direction of travel and at a height of 2.9 meters (the defendant is 1.6m), with details and terms in small print, as can be seen in evidence photos. The positioning, font size, height and lack of illumination mean that the sign is hard to read even if a visitor knows where to find it. It is invisible whilst sitting in the Parking Space.

8. The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice (Schedule 1 - Signage), which states: "Signs must, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such that it is obvious to the motorist." The sign is not located nor mentioned near the site entrance, nor is it obviously located, as required ("Entrance signs").

9. The Claimant's PCN was accompanied with a photo of a small sign stating Visitor Parking scratch cards were required. In preparing this Defence, the Defendant searched the parking site for this sign, and found it some distance from the parking space in question, secured to a wall completely out of sight from the entrance and Parking Space.

10. In order to obtain a Visitors Scratch Card there is a telephone number at the very bottom of the Claimant’s signage which references a ‘Scratch Card Team’ to call. Whilst this wasn’t acknowledged by the Defendant on the day of the PCN, it has since been confirmed that the ‘Scratch Card Team’ do not work on Bank Holiday’s thus there would have been no way to obtain the necessary ‘Scratch Card’ even if the signage had been acknowledged.

11. It should be obvious from the above that signage at this location is entirely inadequate, misleading and incapable of creating a contract with the Defendant. The only clearly visible signage stated parking was unrestricted at the time; the Claimant cannot place a contradictory sign out of sight and expect it to override the unrestricted sign in front of the Parking Space.

12. 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.

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.

Name
Signature
Date

I need to submit the defence by 4pm today - do you think it's ready to go? Also as I am emailing the defence, do I need to do anything on the MCOL web portal to acknowledge my defence has been submitted or will the email suffice?

KeithP

MaxSamuel wrote: »

Also as I am emailing the defence, do I need to do anything on the MCOL web portal to acknowledge my defence has been submitted or will the email suffice?

No need to do anything on MCOL - other than follow the guidance in post #5 above.

MaxSamuel

Thanks, all sorted and will update when possible!