Britannia Parking, Portswood Centre - Court Claim

WubbalubbaDubDude

What's this like for my defence?

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 that it would of 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 £60 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.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name:

Signature:

Date:

Coupon-mad

Very good, but have you not got any ore facts to add to #2.

Why did the car get a PCN and why do you dispute it?