Defence to Claim due 1 April

frustralia

Hi all
I know this is poor and I have left it to last minute but please find my defence below.


I parked in a permit parking space in Lewes outside Laura Ashley. The spaces were not clearly marked permit (instead marked BRC) or pay & display and I paid £1 to pay for one hour in December 2017. When I got fine I rang to say that I paid for the parking and that I disputed the charge and have ignored all letters since then. I now have to file my defence end of day tomorrow 1 April. (I did request SAR but to date have not received anything).


Defence
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number SG06CUU 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 parked in a car space and paid £1 for the pay & display, leaving ticket displayed on dashboard. The spaces which form the basis of the current claim consists of two poorly marked permit spaces and a small number of poorly marked pay & display. The permit spaces were marked BRC on the ground and do not state anywhere clearly that these are permit only. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

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

4. 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 addition £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
5.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.

Coupon-mad

Why didn't you just copy the other BRC Lewes defence from last week?

Search the forum.

KeithP

Can you tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

You may have a few more days than you think.

This is the Defence that C-m is suggesting:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75638639#post75638639

D_P_Dance

Complain to your MP. On 18th 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.

frustralia

Thanks Couponmad - I will revisit and update

frustralia

** Claim form Issue date is 25 February 2019
**I have updated following the BRC mentioned by Coupon_Mad. Do I need to add anywhere that I paid £1 thinking it was pay & display due to poor markings?




1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered Keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident, however the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the driver XXX and that the Defendant is “the driver/keeper 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.

3. The Claimant has not identified the driver of the Vehicle, nor has the Claimant complied with the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 (specifically Schedule 4, sub-paragraph 9 (5) and Schedule 4, sub-paragraph 6 (1b)) which relate to holding a Keeper responsible for a drivers breach of terms. Consequently, it is the Defendants position that the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA and the Defendant cannot therefore be held liable for any alleged breach of contract between the driver and the Claimant.

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. The vehicle, registration XXXX, may have been present on the material date in a marked BRC bay at XXXX, but 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 without exiting the vehicle. It is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

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. This Claim includes an additional £60, for which insufficient calculation or explanation is given, and which appears 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 Civil Procedure Rule 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

frustralia wrote: »

** Claim form Issue date is 25 February 2019

Yes, you are right. Defence is due to be filed today.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's today.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

frustralia

Thanks so much KeithP, appreciate it considering I have had a whole month to prepare this.

Fruitcake

If you do not intend to name the driver, you should amend post 1 where the driver has been identified. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper on here as parking scammers monitor these fora and have been known to use that information against motorists.

There is enough information in your first post for the scammers to determine the driver's identity.

frustralia

ack sorry Fruitcake - I have already submitted to court with the previous post. Will that affect me later on down the track? Or do you mean just on this page?

Le_Kirk

frustralia wrote: »

ack sorry Fruitcake - I have already submitted to court with the previous post. Will that affect me later on down the track? Or do you mean just on this page?

I suspect that Fruitcake means, if you have defended as KEEPER and not as DRIVER, you should edit post # 1 on this thread as it clearly states who was driving!