KBT Cornwall Ltd t/a Armtrac Security

Joe_Blocks

May i also add that on the PCN the REASON FOR ISSUE is Expired ticket


but as you can see in the pictures there doesn't seem to be one on show.

Le_Kirk

Joe_Blocks wrote: »

May i also add that on the PCN the REASON FOR ISSUE is Expired ticket but as you can see in the pictures there doesn't seem to be one on show.

Well I am sure they will be able to produce a photo of the expired ticket in court when the judge asks them!

Joe_Blocks

If they had a photo of a expired ticket wouldn't they of sent it to me in the SAR they sent me? which they didn't.
And i was told by the person who was the driver on that day the ticket was under the drivers seat and it must of got there when they closed the car door and the wind took off the dashboard apparently?!?


Plus as they said in there SAR "Unfortunately, as we are the landowner, we do not have access to any records regarding the parking machines."

Coupon-mad

Please show us your new draft defence based on bargepole's examples.

Joe_Blocks

Coupon-mad
I haven't done one yet cause i have no idea what to put in it firstly....plus I'm not even sure its worth fighting
it to be honest. that's why I'm asking lots of questions here to see what people think..

Coupon-mad

There is almost nothing to add to bargepole's generic defence.

Everyone has a case against PPC scammers.

Joe_Blocks

Coupon-mad


Is this bargepole's generic defence your on about that i should adjust??


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. 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.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no 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 CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

You'd obviously be replacing #2 and #3 with your own facts, and changing the claimant which is not UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant).

Why not simply read all the other KBT Cornwall defences and see how they did theirs? You can search for the words Cornwall defence & find several current ones.

Joe_Blocks

Two questions..


1. How much time do i have to send my defense to the court?
The date on the ccbc is 03 May and i filled my AOS on the 15 May
and they received the AOS on the 16 May.


2. I have written a defense but i can't copy & paste it here how come?
Must i write it all word for word in this box?

KeithP

Joe_Blocks wrote: »

1. How much time do i have to send my defense to the court?
The date on the ccbc is 03 May and i filled my AOS on the 15 May
and they received the AOS on the 16 May.

You already know the answer to that.

Re-read post #9 above, where you will find...

...you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That is today - less than two hours away.