Civil Enforcement ltd County court summons inc disability elements

Riddelluk82

Than you to coupon-mad for your help so far, here is my new and redrafted defence statement are there any further adjustments needed? i have tried to include some context of the situation and give the judge some understanding of the claim.


"1. 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. 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.

4. The alleged breach, according to Civil Enforcement, is in contravention of terms and conditions; clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement are required to show evidence to the contrary. The signs in the car park are on exterior walls and are placed every fourth row and spaced with seven car parking spaces between them. Due to the distance and the orientation of the sign it is therefore possible to park and walk to the Morrisons Shopping Centre, particularly when parking in the middle two rows and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements. Here, the signs are sporadically placed. The wording is mostly illegible as it is so small in size, particularly notice of the actual parking charge itself.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. The defendant questions the claimants use of the Equality Act 2010 and puts them under strict proof to provide evidence of their “reasonable adjustments” to prevent “indirect discrimination” of the Grace Period stated in BPA Code of Practice 2018, section 13.1- 10 mins prior to purchase and section 13.4 - 10 minutes post purchase to vacate the parking area.

7. The claimant disputes the claimants claim that the vehicle was “parked” when it may have been unloading rather than parked. The time infringement was recorded as 31 minutes if accurate. Jopson vs Homeguard services 2016 shows that parking cannot be given any justifiable period of time. See paragraph 19 & 20.
“19. The appellant’s case could also be put in another way. The purported prohibition was upon “parking”, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.
20. Either party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.
b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

9. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in “good faith” and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).
a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.
b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false.
d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.

10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012

11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as the incident occurred during unloading luggage and the boarding/alighting of disabled passengers into the hotel to stay, not during parking.

My sister and disabled mother were visiting from the USA, I collected them from the airport with my 9 year old daughter who is also disabled (wheelchair user due to premature birth and cerebral palsy) as she was very excited to see nanny and auntie as it had been many years since the last time they saw each other, then took them to hotel.
When I arrived at the hotel I started to unload the cases and helped the various people who needed support to leave the vehicle, my sister helped my daughter into her wheelchair while I focussed on the luggage and my mother, assisting with luggage up to the room with a lack of porter in the hotel. The 31 minutes claimed for parking is not parking it was loading and unloading (see paragraph 7) it should be an exempt activity, especially as it was two exemptions; the “dropping off “ procedure took longer than usual, compared to if the patrons were able rather than disabled, and the carrying of luggage upto their room.

12. I have since been back to the hotel in question to ask them if they can support me in anyway to have the ticket cancelled they said they often dismiss tickets “in house” if if you provide the PCN number, the manager on duty attempted to do this and said they would happily dismiss the charge, I provided the PCN but they said they were unable to cancel it due to it already having gone through to the “legal team”. If as the hotel admit they cancel tickets regularly for customer this is more evidence that this particular claim is without basis. This would show
In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.

13. As in the appeal case of Moncrieff, the Lords opinion is that;

“34. For the owners, use of their own vehicles would involve walking a distance of about 150 yards, in all weathers and in times of darkness as well as in daylight, over what the sheriff has described as a significantly steep descent or climb in open and exposed country. In the case of a mother with very young children, for example, this would mean leaving them unattended and unsupervised in the house while parking or collecting her vehicle, or alternatively taking her children with her on foot in such conditions to and from the place where she had to park her vehicle. Owners who had no difficulty in driving but found walking difficult because they were disabled or elderly would have to do this too, as the restriction on parking for which the defenders argue applies to everyone.”
“Did the express grant of a right of access carry with it a right to park?
52. But a vehicle driver who lives at Da Store is not entitled, it is insisted, to leave the vehicle at or around the Da Store gate but, instead, after unloading any goods and/or passengers at the Da Store gate, must drive back to the Sandsound branch road, leave the vehicle there and walk back to Da Store. If he or she is accompanied by small children who cannot be left alone, they must perforce accompany the driver. If that is what the driver has to do, it cannot be said that he is exercising a right of vehicular access.”

This shows I would have been unable to leave my daughter unattended in a city centre hotel carpark while assisting disabled patrons of a hotel that have decided use a unscrupulous parking company to manage their carpark, and makes the use of the carpark a complex situation.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

******************************** "

Riddelluk82

Is there anything else I need to do before sending this off as my defence.

Coupon-mad

#11 and #12 are good but need to be higher up, to set the scene earlier.

And then change all the ''I'' and ''me'' to 'the Defendant' as defences are written in the third person, traditionally, and you want the Judge onside. Ideally use font Times New Roman with 1.5 line spacing too, in your defence PDF before you print & sign it and scan it back in to email it to the CCBC.

You will get your chance to tell the full story before the hearing in the WS and evidence.

Riddelluk82

Will do thank you 😁