County Court Claim Form Recieved - Excel - BW Legal

SavvySavey

So I'd like thank everyone again for all the help given so far!!

I've gone through and restructured based on the what seems to be the most important parts. I've cut it down by a few hundred words (it now fits on 3 pages when spaced out) mostly cutting down on the procedural stuff (although I can elaborate if appropriate and the Judge seems to want more detail).

I'm thinking of removing the final point (12), as I know what I'm trying to say but I don't think the point is coming across. I think not making that argument is better than trying to make it poorly.
________________________________________________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT (NAME)
________________________________________________________________


1. The Defendant asks the court to dismiss the claim due to the below grounds:

Lack of Liability
2. The claimant is not clear about whether they are pursing the Defendant as Keeper or Driver. See below, paras 10-11.

3. If as a driver it is for them to prove that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant has made no admission that they were driving and puts the claimant to full proof.

4. If as a Keeper, they need to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). They have not, as per para 7.3 of the Defence.

A Factual Basis
5. If liability and the existence of a contract exists, which is denied, then its terms were fulfilled. A pay and display ticket was purchased and displayed in the car.

a. In para 44 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, a 10 minute grace period is mentioned. Nowhere on any of the signage is this term stated.

b. The signs state that tickets “must be purchased at the time of parking”. As it is the Claimant who is seeking to rely on it, it must be interpreted against them (contra preferentum). This leaves two options:

(i) That the ticket must be purchased before the driver had left the car park premises. In this instance they had not left the premises, and it is for the claimant to prove otherwise.

(ii) That the ticket must be purchased within a reasonable time of the driver leaving the vehicle. If the claimant wishes to claim that 10 minutes is a reasonable time, they must submit their reasoning for doing so.

c. 10 minutes is not a reasonable time due to the obstacles which made it impossible for a ticket to be purchased in time. A factual account of the obstacles can be found in the Defendant’s Witness Statement in paras 4-6. 10 minutes should be the very minimum and the allowed time should consider the particular circumstances of the car park, time of day, and the driver. It should not be a blanket allowance applied to any car park.

6. In any case, the time taken is de minimis and is unreasonable to bring a claim for.

Lack of Contract
7. It is for the claimant to prove that a contract had been entered into.

a. The Claimant’s reference Thorton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 QB 163. The case provides that the signage must be sufficient to create the contract. In this case it was not. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the sign is much clearer and found to be sufficient.

b. The Claimant reference Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 as signs being “the only method” of stopping unauthorised parking. Other methods of enforcement, such as ticketed barriers, are viable.

c. The Claimant’s Evidence FJ2 show a number of pictures of signage around the car park. None of these pictures are legible.

d. The design of the sign on p25 is intentionally hard to read making the less important parts larger than they need to be and making text smaller in favour of unused space.

e. The large sign at the entrance to the car park is impossible to read while driving.

Procedural Basis
8. The claim made via Money Claims Online (MCOL) is broad and unspecific. It does not utilise the 1080 character limit. MCOL explicitly allows claimants to submit further particulars outside the platform.

9. The Charge Notice (Claimant’s Evidence FJ2 p. 40, Defendant’s Evidence 3a) clearly states the value of £100. There is no explanation in the particulars for the additional £60.

a. These sums have been held to be unrecoverable (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). They are also against POFA. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue knowingly inflated claims. The Claimant should know their claim is inflated due to their case history.

10. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is inconsistent. Para 29 contradicts with para 46 on liability. Para 12 about the role of patrol officers (PO) contradicts the facts.

11. Letters sent by the claimant are inconsistent. The first letter is titled mentions “Notice to Driver”. The second letter mentions “A Notice to Keeper”.

The suggestion the claimant has an untoward interest
12. The Claimant has submitted their contract with the land proprietor (FJ1 p15-23). In paragraph 11 of this agreement, it says the claimant will comply with relevant laws. The relevant laws in this context must be POFA. In schedule 2 of this agreement, it stated that the claimant will keep all income from PCNs suggesting their business model is reliant on this income.

I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Defence are true.

Umkomaas

Looks a lot better and much more manageable. But don't be surprised or disappointed if the Judge doesn't even reference it. These hearings can be over in a flash.

Remember to attach your 6-point Cost Schedule (see the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 for layout). You need to serve copies of both the SA and Cost Schedule on the court and Claimant at the same time - three or more days prior to the hearing.

Just a few minor points below from me:

contra preferentum

Spelling - 'Contra Proferentem'

The first letter is titled mentions “Notice to Driver”.

This doesn't read correctly.

In schedule 2 of this agreement, it stated that the claimant will keep all income from PCNs suggesting their business model is reliant on this income.

An almost universal business model across the PPC network. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

Umkomaas

Just hold on ....... I've scanned over the whole thread and you could blow yourself completely out of the water with this opening point:

Lack of Liability
2. The claimant is not clear about whether they are pursing the Defendant as Keeper or Driver. See below, paras 10-11.

3. If as a driver it is for them to prove that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant has made no admission that they were driving and puts the claimant to full proof.

4. If as a Keeper, they need to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). They have not, as per para 7.3 of the Defence.

The driver is identified in your very first post (Excel often copy such admissions for posterity and use them in court) and if your submitted Witness Statement is that as shown in post #27, then the admission is there, under a Statement of Truth. Arguing 'No Liability' in the context of PoFA is a contradiction of your WS.

Loadsofchildren123

I'd leave the first part of point 12 in, it's a good point. Not sure what the point of the last sentence is.
Although if you are conceding that you are driver, POFA doesn't matter

SavvySavey

Thanks again. For some reason my computer's IP address has been blocked on the forum (it may be because I kept getting errors when submitting so it looks like I've spammed the forum even though I only posted once) so I can't properly update my SA here but I have made those changes.

Just with the point on admitting I was the driver, I see how it may appear that I've done that in the first post. The claimants haven't submitted this as evidence though so I don't see how they can rely on it. And surely if they have the information, it should be in the SAR?

With my witness statement, I don't see how I've admitted to being the driver. Just because I was the one who bought the ticket doesn't mean I am the driver.

I don't think it's that vital anyway with the other points in my case.

nosferatu1001

They may still bring it up and its up to the court to allow it or not. Why risk it?
You cant be seen to lose credibility as a witness. Do that, and you will likely lose.

WIth eh WS you jsut explicitly state you were an occupant of the vehicle, then its hard for them to pick holes. Same as we advise anyone.

Le_Kirk

SavvySavey wrote: »

_____________________________________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT (NAME)
_____________________________________________________

I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Defence are true.

Is it an argument or a defence?

Umkomaas

For some reason my computer's IP address has been blocked on the forum (it may be because I kept getting errors when submitting so it looks like I've spammed the forum even though I only posted once) so I can't properly update my SA here but I have made those changes.

It's usually because of copying and pasting direct from Word.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338/please-dont-copy-and-paste-from-word-outlook

With my witness statement, I don't see how I've admitted to being the driver. Just because I was the one who bought the ticket doesn't mean I am the driver.

Try this:

2. On [DATE], I visited [CAR PARK] and parked my vehicle with registration [REG NO] in the car park.

You'll need a pretty dull Judge to miss this if you're arguing no keeper liability under PoFA. There's no need for the claimant to be submitting any evidence when you've already done that for them.

SavvySavey

You'll need a pretty dull Judge to miss this if you're arguing no keeper liability under PoFA. There's no need for the claimant to be submitting any evidence when you've already done that for them.

Ahah, I guess I would make a dull judge then. I don't know how I missed this when I was the one who wrote it.

So I've removed the liability from my SA. I think that I've still got good grounds to win though.

You need to serve copies of both the SA and Cost Schedule on the court and Claimant at the same time - three or more days prior to the hearing.

The letter from the court says I cvan bring it on the day. Is there any advantage to submitting earlier?


Thanks for all the other little comments as well. Think I'm pretty much there now. Just one more question. Should I leave the last point in or is it completely irrelevant now? I've elaborated how it might be relevant.

1. The Defendant asks the court to dismiss the claim due to the below grounds:

A Factual Basis
2. If a contract exists, which is denied, then its terms were fulfilled. A pay and display ticket was purchased and displayed in the car.

a. In para 44 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, a 10 minute grace period is mentioned. Nowhere on any of the signage is this term stated.

b. The signs state that tickets “must be purchased at the time of parking”. As it is the Claimant who is seeking to rely on it, it must be interpreted against them (Contra Proferentem). This leaves two options:

(i) That the ticket must be purchased before the driver had left the car park premises. In this instance they had not left the premises, and it is for the claimant to prove otherwise.

(ii) That the ticket must be purchased within a reasonable time of the driver leaving the vehicle. If the claimant wishes to claim that 10 minutes is a reasonable time, they must submit their reasoning for doing so.

c. 10 minutes is not a reasonable time due to the obstacles which made it impossible for a ticket to be purchased in time. A factual account of the obstacles can be found in the Defendant’s Witness Statement in paras 4-6. 10 minutes should be the very minimum and the allowed time should consider the particular circumstances of the car park, time of day, and the driver. It should not be a blanket allowance applied to any car park.

3. In any case, the time taken is de minimis and is unreasonable to bring a claim for.

Lack of Contract
4. It is for the claimant to prove that a contract had been entered into.

a. The Claimant’s reference Thorton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 QB 163. The case provides that the signage must be sufficient to create the contract. In this case it was not. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the sign is much clearer and found to be sufficient.

b. The Claimant reference Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 as signs being “the only method” of stopping unauthorised parking. Other methods of enforcement, such as ticketed barriers, are viable.

c. The Claimant’s Evidence FJ2 show a number of pictures of signage around the car park. None of these pictures are legible.

d. The design of the sign on p25 is intentionally hard to read making the less important parts larger than they need to be and making text smaller in favour of unused space.

e. The large sign at the entrance to the car park is impossible to read while driving.

Procedural Basis
5. The claim made via Money Claims Online (MCOL) is broad and unspecific. It does not utilise the 1080 character limit. MCOL explicitly allows claimants to submit further particulars outside the platform.

6. The Charge Notice (Claimant’s Evidence FJ2 p. 40, Defendant’s Evidence 3a) clearly states the value of £100. There is no explanation in the particulars for the additional £60.

a. These sums have been held to be unrecoverable (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue knowingly inflated claims. The Claimant should know their claim is inflated due to their case history.

7. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is inconsistent. Para 29 contradicts with para 46 on liability. Para 12 about the role of patrol officers (PO) contradicts the facts.

8. Letters sent by the claimant are inconsistent. The first letter is titled “Notice to Driver”. The second letter mentions “Notice to Keeper”.

The suggestion the claimant has an untoward interest
9. The Claimant has submitted their contract with the land proprietor (FJ1 p15-23). In paragraph 11 of this agreement, it says the claimant will comply with relevant laws. The relevant laws in this context must be Scheduled 4 Protection of Freedom Act (POFA). Even if the Claimant is now pursing this case outside of POFA, before they were aware the defendant is the driver POFA would have been the relevant law at the time.

I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.

Coupon-mad

You need to serve copies of both the SA and Cost Schedule on the court and Claimant at the same time - three or more days prior to the hearing.
The letter from the court says I can bring it on the day. Is there any advantage to submitting earlier?

When I attended court with StubbornGoat last month, the Judge would have awarded his £1500 costs on the indemnity basis but she didn't because she felt that the D slightly ambushed the Claimant by not being served more than a couple of days before.

I disagree, but hey, that's what the Judge said.

We now advise that a costs schedule goes earlier, then the C can't say they didn't know about your costs (in the hundreds, of course). It is more transparent and fair to serve & file a costs schedule earlier and you will attract no criticism.

A Skelly can be filed & served a couple of days before. So do them together, and certainly not just by rocking up with them on the day.