Parking Ticket Back In June Of Last Year Now Resulting In Court

Quentin

BeadyRoller wrote: »

….. Where is this template?

There aren't "template" defences as such


But lots of links to near template defences you can tailor to your circs

Redx

the defence ones are where posts by member BARGEPOLE are linked !!

use a laptop for this task, if you are not using a laptop it will harm your abilities to see what you are told, DO NOT USE A PHONE for this

that NEWBIES thread has all the advice you need , please study it

there are 2 DEFENCES by BARGEPOLE linked in there , read them both , one is longer than the other , the short one is the concise one

Le_Kirk

We find it is better if you carry out your research yourself as it tends to stick better. On that basis, go to the NEWBIE thread, post # 2 and scroll down until you see: -

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Here is a defence I suggested

........ and keep reading, these are defences suited to most cases. Another way is to use the Search this Forum button, Advanced Search, User name bargepole (note the lower case) and change the radio button from Threads to Posts. You will find loads!!

BeadyRoller

How is this so far?

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXXX (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 Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver 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 Defendant was a customer of Starbucks and was on site at all times spending money at the establishment. The Defendant was using the car park for it's intended purpose and had no reason to believe there was a time frame in which he had to abide by.

4. It is denied that the claimant's signage is clear to see when parking and walking in to the establishment and is to small to get the customers attention if not looking the way of the signage.

5. 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 Starbucks. 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.

6. 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 £82.00 as well as other extras for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

6.1. The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional £93.29 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100 (this sum also being the ceiling allowed by the BPA) and thus £100 is the maximum sum potentially recoverable under contract, regardless of whether the illegible small print on the signs attempted to bolt on a further sum (this is not known, but is a common trick by this industry).

7. 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.

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

KeithP

BeadyRoller, please delete that copy of your Defence you arbitrarily posted on someone else's thread.

And remove your vehicle#'s registration mark from both copies.

Redx

its a start, dont expect to get it right at first attempt, it will be honed as you go

and dont tell me it was hard to make that start from the information given, you soon found what you needed after all the pointers given

edit out the VRM if that is the vehicle VRM, its not needed in the draft, only in the final version you submit to the CCBC

no personal details on a public forum , no VRM, no names or addresses , no references

capiche ?

BeadyRoller

KeithP wrote: »

BeadyRoller, please delete that copy of your Defence you arbitrarily posted on someone else's thread.

Done. Sorry about that. Had multiple tabs open and thought I was posting to this thread.

BeadyRoller

Redx wrote: »

its a start, dont expect to get it right at first attempt, it will be honed as you go

edit out the VRM if that is the vehicle VRM, its not needed in the draft, only in the final version you submit to the CCBC

no personal details on a public forum , no VRM, no names or addresses , no references

capiche ?

Oooops, edited out now. I'll keep looking and see if there's anything else I can add to it.

Redx

BeadyRoller wrote: »

Oooops, edited out now. I'll keep looking and see if there's anything else I can add to it.

good , and this is what Le_Kirk said in the other thread you posted in

Did you meant to post on your own thread???
If that is your correct VRM, I would remove it.

Also, there is usually a point about the PPC trying to claim additional monies, check out the bargepole defences again.
Last edited by Le_Kirk

BeadyRoller

Redx wrote: »

good , and this is what Le_Kirk said in the other thread you posted in

I have read that point but looking at the POC they gave me, I see no information about any contractual costs, just "debt + damages". Also states there is some interest on the amount.