County Court Claim from Parking Eye Ltd (Home Bargains)

KeithP

So nothing about forbidding signs?

Nothing about only the landowner can sue for trespass?

silverchoice

KeithP wrote: »

So nothing about forbidding signs?

Nothing about only the landowner can sue for trespass?

I've editted my defence to include this.

silverchoice

Are there any other changes I should
make to my defence ?

silverchoice

I want to submit this tomorrow so can anyone please tell me if there are there any changes I need to make ?


[FONT=&quot]In The County Court [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claim No: xxxxxxxx[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]PARKINGEYE Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant was not a customer of Home Bargains but the sign says for use by customers only. The wording of the signage forbids parking, then there was no offer to park and therefore no contract. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A trespass has occurred, which means only the landowner can claim, not the parking company (see PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016])[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]he sign states the maximum stay was one and a half hours. The parking management plan that was submitted with the planning permission for the previous Netto store states the maximum stay was two hours. This has not been amended by further planning applications. The Defendant was parked for two hours and eleven minutes which is within the grace period for parking (two hours plus twenty minutes). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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, 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 [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

KeithP wrote: »

So nothing about forbidding signs?

Nothing about only the landowner can sue for trespass?

That's a very short defence, and forbidding signs should be a separate point, and you don't have no landowner authority in there, (see ANY other defence examples).

I dislike this and feel an admission like this harms you so remove it:

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant was not a customer of Home Bargains but the sign says for use by customers only. The wording of the signage forbids parking, then there was no offer to park and therefore no contract.
A trespass has occurred, which means only the landowner can claim, not the parking company (see PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016])

I think a Judge would be against you from the outset if you say that up front.

silverchoice

Is this any better?

silverchoice wrote: »

I want to submit this tomorrow so can anyone please tell me if there are there any changes I need to make ?


[FONT=&quot]In The County Court [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claim No: xxxxxxxx[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]PARKINGEYE Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________[/FONT]

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

[FONT=&quot]2. [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]he sign states the maximum stay was one and a half hours. The parking management plan that was submitted with the planning permission for the previous Netto store states the maximum stay was two hours. This has not been amended by further planning applications. The Defendant was parked for two hours and eleven minutes which is within the grace period for parking (two hours plus twenty minutes). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

4. The signs used by the claimant cannot constitute a contract as they are prohibitive or forbidding and do not have the necessary requirements of a contract, offer, acceptance and consideration. The supreme court stated in Parking Eye v Beavis that only the land owner/occupier could sue for trespass.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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, 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 [/FONT]

The_Deep

IMO, the sign at post 13 does not and cannot form a contract. The small print alone consists of over 300 words. It is unreasonable to expect a motorist to stand in the cold and rain to read it all before parking one's car.

This is a scam perpetrated by a well know scammer. Complain to your MP. They have legislated to rein in these scammers.

On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

This isn't true, so remove it. Don't make easy passes for P/Eye to intercept:

(two hours plus twenty minutes).

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This isn't true, so remove it. Don't make easy passes for P/Eye to intercept:

Thanks. Is the rest of the paragraph alright ?


[FONT=&quot]"2. [FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]he sign states the maximum stay was one and a half hours. The parking management plan that was submitted with the planning permission for the previous Netto store states the maximum stay was two hours. This has not been amended by further planning applications. The Defendant was parked for two hours and eleven minutes which is within the grace period for parking."[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes that's better.