KBT Cornwall Ltd t/a Armtrac Security

Joe_Blocks

13. The Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd.

14. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

15. The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Defendant having provided details of a valid ticket having been purchased that would have enabled it to establish that the Defendant was parked legitimately.

Joe_Blocks

16. £60 of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) the Claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges and £4.80 as statutory interest both for breach of contract. This amounts to double charging, which the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) specifically disallows. Added costs/damages were also deemed unrecoverable in the Supreme Court case of Beavis, which allowed only the parking charge itself (£85) due to compelling facts about clear signs, a legitimate commercial interest and deterrent value in encouraging turnover of spaces. None of this applies to this claim, which is wholly meritless due to the Claimant's failure to similarly disengage the penalty rule.

17. The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite CPR 27.14 not permitting such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid and that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred either. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The defendant lodged a SAR request to the claimant requesting: ‘evidence of a payment to a debt collector (BW Legal) re: £50 addition to the PCN’. However, no such evidence was provided. The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. These were presumably the £25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

18. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Therefore, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. as the Claimant has failed to provide basic details about its claim; is seeking an extravagant and unconscionable penalty and is automating its use of the court process against the public interest to intimidate and harass those acting in good faith.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence to be true.

Printed Name

Signed Dated

Quentin

Pointless posting it here!

If you have missed the deadline for submission of your defence then the claimant can now get a default ccj against you

Send it now,!

Joe_Blocks

It was all cause of this web site not letting me post it and then banned me thinking it was spam

Quentin

Don't blame mse!

If the claimant is on the ball and their request for judgement is already in they will get it

Joe_Blocks

Most blame goes to me for taking so long i get that.


Please any help to adjust or tweak it please

Redx

section 3) is missing

Coupon-mad

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Should be just DEFENCE

You need to remove all the ''I'' from point #2 and charge to 'the Defendant' (capital 'D' throughout your defence).

You have no #3. So maybe put:

3. On the parking charge notice (PCN) the ''REASON FOR ISSUE'' shows the words 'Expired ticket'. This is denied, and none of the photographs provided under a Subject Access Request show any evidence of an expired ticket. This is important because the PCN was attempting to be a Notice to Driver ('NTD') followed by a Notice to Keeper ('NTK') as defined under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA'). Both notices fail the mandatory informational requirements in 7(2)b and 8(2)c which says these two notices MUST ''inform the driver (in the case of the NTD, and then a month later, the keeper, on the NTK) of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable.'' Without full compliance with the POFA, transfer of liability cannot lawfully pass to a registered keeper and given the fact that this Defendant was not driving, the claim must fail.

How can you say this and this:

9. The valid parking ticket was taken from the dashboard of the car and shown to the PCN issuer after they had affixed the PCN to the windscreen, but they refused to cancel the PCN. The Defendant subsequently appealed the PCN on XX/XX/XXXX explaining what had happened and included a photographic copy of the front and back of the ticket displayed on the day. The serial number on the front and back of the ticket in the Defendant’s photograph, in fact, matching the serial number on the claimant’s photo of the reverse side of the ticket: XXXXXXXX and the front of the ticket in the Defendant’s photograph also displays the last 3 letters of their registration number. On both accounts, this provided the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood. Both provided an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

15. The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Defendant having provided details of a valid ticket having been purchased that would have enabled it to establish that the Defendant was parked legitimately.

...yet earlier the defence says you DON'T KNOW who was driving?!

:eek:

It is clear that's a lie. Never lie to the court.

So, to get round that, change this sentence in #2:

The Defendant [STRIKE]is unable[/STRIKE] has no obligation in law to provide details of who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention on XXXXXX, and it was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report in 2015 by Henry Greenslade - erstwhile PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and parking law expert barrister - that an operator cannot make any presumption that a keeper was the driver on private land, nor draw any adverse inference from a registered keeper's lawful decision not to name the driver and inflict a less robust family member with the abject misery and intimidation of a court case, when there is no evidence of an 'expired ticket' anyway. [STRIKE]as the vehicle is used by multiple family members and friends. [/STRIKE]

In #14, don't put:

as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

...as the D was not the driver! You need 'the driver had paid...'

By the same token, in #15 don't put:

the Defendant was parked legitimately.

You were not even there! ''The driver was parked legitimately''.

Finally, do not describe the parking charge sum as £160, as it's not:

16. In a gross abuse of process and attempt at double recovery, a made-up figure of £60 has been plucked out of thin air to add to the already inflated £100, the former sum being variously described as 'debt collection' or contractual/indemnity costs. No such costs were ever incurred. The minor costs of a parking operator's letters are a feature of this business model and - as was held by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 - the small cost of automated letters amount to an estimated £12-£15, a standard business cost already more than covered in the inflated 'parking charge' itself. [STRIKE]of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) [/STRIKE]

Coupon-mad

Make all those changes and DO NOT show us again. No wasting time asking again!

Just get the thing signed & dated and emailed within half an hour - RIGHT NOW!

Joe_Blocks

Thank you very much Coupon-mad