county court claim form

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, as already stated when you were working on it.

You have all you need, it's a bit long but all OK and relevant and you've made it clear this is different from the Beavis case.

However, as I am a pedant, I notice that #6, #7 and #13 all say essentially the same thing, so I'd amalgamate #6 and #7, and delete #13 which is superfluous and waffly.

Also remove this, because you are admitting to being that driver (good):

, or any driver of the vehicle,

Eminowa

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

LINK PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1.) The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX 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 is a visitor of XXXXXXX. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked parking spaces located at XXXX Court Swindon, where the Defendant was an authorised visitor. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there were no clear signs when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3.) The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located are therefore impossible to see by a driver in a passing vehicle.
b. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 5), which states the signage ought to “have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”; Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) showed that the Claimant's signs (including the one shown by the Claimant in this case) fail to enter into contract with the driver as implied by the Claimant. Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in xxxxxx, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. Furthermore, the opening words of the sign appear to be designed more to ward off trespassers than to enter into a contract with the driver. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

4.) Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
The Defendant was authorised by a resident of the flat with a lease agreement, therefore was not unauthorised. The defendant in this case had no reason to conclude or agree that a parking charge applied to such a visitor.

5.) 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.

6.)The particulars of claim state that the vehicle XXX XXX incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXX Court Swindon. 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, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.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.

7.) 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.

8.) 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.

9.) 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).

10.) 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).

11.)The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.



12.) 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.

13.) 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.

14.) 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.

15.) The particulars of Claim represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


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 the case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Dated this XX day of April 2019
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
SIGNED

KeithP

Para 7) talks about POFA and the maximum amount that can be claimed from a keeper.

But you are defending as an admitted driver, so that point is not relevant.


Also, the last sentence of both paras 5) & 6) are identical - except for the one word 'Further'.

Eminowa

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

LINK PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1.) The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX 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 is a visitor of XXXXXXX. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked parking spaces located at XXXX Court Swindon, where the Defendant was an authorised visitor. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there were no clear signs when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3.) The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located are therefore impossible to see by a driver in a passing vehicle.
b. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 5), which states the signage ought to “have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”; Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) showed that the Claimant's signs (including the one shown by the Claimant in this case) fail to enter into contract with the driver as implied by the Claimant. Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in xxxxxx, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. Furthermore, the opening words of the sign appear to be designed more to ward off trespassers than to enter into a contract with the driver. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

4.) Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
The Defendant was authorised by a resident of the flat with a lease agreement, therefore was not unauthorised. The defendant in this case had no reason to conclude or agree that a parking charge applied to such a visitor.

5.) 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.

6.)The particulars of claim state that the vehicle XXX XXX incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXX Court Swindon. 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, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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 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).

9.) 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).

10.)The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.



11.) 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.

12.) 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.

13.) 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.

14.) The particulars of Claim represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


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 the case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Dated this XX day of April 2019
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
SIGNED

Eminowa

So is this defence good to go?

Eminowa

Hello, I have done my draft, still waiting for my SAR to come back from PPC,
So please can someone tell me if my draft defence is good to go now, please....I need critics please...thanks

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, as already stated when you were working on it.

I know you are nervous but no need to ask again, we've already commented a fair bit.

And as you know from the NEWBIES thread, defence is not the only stage before a hearing anyway, plenty of things to do later on and evidence to submit etc., so get this bit done by email to the CCBC AQ email addy, and relax for a while!

Eminowa

i have sent my Defence and have received an acknowledgement from the county court, saying they have received and also sent off my Defence to the PPC and their solictor.
i have also received my SAR from both PPC and Gladstones solicitor.
i guess its now a waiting game for the next 28days to see what PPC does.
i just want to say a Big shout out to KeithP, Coupon-mad, Le_Kirk and other. Thank you for all for your support and advice.

Le_Kirk

Assume the PPC wants to continue to court and start preparing your Witness Statement and gathering evidence, the results of the SAR should help.

Eminowa

Please how do i gather evidences as the PCN happened in Swindon, and i live here in the west midlands, and we don't look after that client anymore in Swindon, so i dont go there anymore.
my SAR from Gladstone, doesn't say much, it says that i own their client (PPC) PCN and they got my address from Experian
the SAR from PPC is just showing a notice to keeper letter, transfer of liability on the back of the letter, the original PCN and then a picture of my vehicle park with a PCN on the windscreen and lastly, a picture for their sign showing the terms and conditions. all these pictures and in small sizes