county court claim form

Eminowa

Yes, as advised in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, you should be sending a SAR to the Claimant as soon as possible.

thanks keithP, i have sent my SAR to the PPC, and i have also done my AoS.
so just waiting for my SAR to come back,
i am doing my draft defence now, so i can get it ready on time for review by our professionals on this thread.

Eminowa

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Somebody will no doubt read your defence but you have to give them more than SEVEN minutes which is the time between your two posts!


What does this mean please? Do you mean you submitted the AoS online?

Yes my mistake, i have submitted my AoS.

Le_Kirk

Eminowa wrote: »

Yes my mistake, i have submitted my AoS.

In which case you have (as posted by KeithP) until 22nd April to submit your defence. If you don't receive any comments on it by middle of this week, just bump the thread.

Eminowa

Just a quick question, i have got a draft defence which i have copied and edited to fit my PCN situation. My question now is, do i wait until i receive my SAR from the PPC, before i put in my draft on here for critics or put in now for critics while waiting for my SAR to come, mind you i have done my AoS,so i have got until 4pm monday the 22nd of April to log in my defences.
any suggestion is highly apprecaited. thanks

KeithP

The longer you give people on here to comment on your draft Defence the better.

Eminowa

Here is my Draft Defence
All Critics is highly appreciated. Thanks for reading..

here is my Draft defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

LINK PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1.)It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxx residing at xxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.

2.) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

3.) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxx 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.) The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5.) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The defendant chooses to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is their right.

6.) 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.

7.) ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording set out in Schedule 4, Section 9 (f) POFA. And, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

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.) 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.

10.) The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible. And so no contract was formed with the driver to pay £60, £100, £160 or any sum at all, since the signs have no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival and the wording is prohibitive and in any event. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver who was not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they - and this Defendant- would later be pursued. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen then there can be no contract (the Defendant relies upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000 in this regard).

11.) The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence in that the Defendant was the driver (not so here).

12.) The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and the Pre-action Protocol. It merely provides a date, location, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added ‘Legal representative’s costs’ of £50. I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

13.) The Claimant is put to strict proof to explain why they have failed to comply with the Protocol and why Gladstones appear to consider themselves and their clients to be immune from the rules of the court, which bind every other litigant.

14.) The Claimant has failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, as regards clear signage and acting in a professional manner to ensure that action is not taken without any cause. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

15.) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming any reasonable losses connected with defending this claim and attending any hearings.

16. Based on the above reasons, the Court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

xxxxxxx

Eminowa

KeithP wrote: »

The longer you give people on here to comment on your draft Defence the better.

Thanks KeithP. i have just posted my Draft defence. i hope you find time to read and critic. Thanks a Million.
KeithP you are one of the Brainier in this thread...i do appreciate all your efforts.
God Bless

Eminowa

#17 is my Draft defence. please kindly critic asap. Thanks

Coupon-mad

Looks good...except I am worried in the first point you have denied being the driver, yet your first post here tells us you were?

YOU MUST NOT LIE TO THE COURT.

If you were the driver then say so, and you can't use the POFA.

I would just add to this, point #11 from here which is always worth including:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75630550#Comment_75630550

Eminowa

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks good...except I am worried in the first point you have denied being the driver, yet your first post here tells us you were?

YOU MUST NOT LIE TO THE COURT.

If you were the driver then say so, and you can't use the POFA.

I would just add to this, point #11 from here which is always worth including:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75630550#Comment_75630550

i am getting confused now, i thought i was reading in a thread where someone mention that we should mention who the driver was. in regards to that, the PPC are pursueing the registered keeper/ driver because they don't really know who parked on the premises.
i am getting confused here now, because i read on different thread where POFA was used say they cant work on Assumption.