county court claim

tolek

Hi, I have received a County court claim for parking on road with my wheels on the pavement. The claim says I parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage. I have what I think is the basis of my defence, have completed my AoS but would like to post everything with scans of the wording of the claim and the photo evidence but can't seem to work out how to upload the photos. Could someone point me to any guidance of how to do that please? - When I click submit image it asks for a URL


Thanks

KeithP

Who is the Claimant?

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did your Claim Form come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Coupon-mad

You can't post a working link yet, so host the images in something free (Dropbox is good) then get a 'share' image URL, then copy it here in a reply then BREAK THE LINK by changing http to hxxp and adding a gap or two.

Don't try to upload an image.

tolek

Hi, thank you for the quick replies.

Here are the letters and photos.

hxxps://www.
dropbox
.com
/sh/
kobypciehf1u8sn/
AABdIQlm3m7kRtgzwc6aaBBca?dl=0

The claim says that the driver agreed to pay the parking charge but I'm pretty certain I haven't because I'm pretty sure it is a public road. I did log in to the website to see the evidence when I first got it and not having found this website I followed some advice i was given to ignore the claim so I have ignored all letters sent so far. There is a picture of the sign which neither my wife or I noticed when one of us parked and wouldn't have looked for one since we thought we were parking on a public road.

I can't even remember whether it was me or my wife that actually parked the car.

The sign looks small in the photo and having revisited the site since it looks like it is referring to the land the other side of the wall or possibly the waste land behind the pavement.

I have a link to the actual evidence if that would be useful although the small print on the sign is not visible on that either.

I have had a go at my defense below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxx
BETWEEN:

LTD (Claimant)

-and-



________________________________________
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 on a public road.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the owner of the vehicle is unsure whether he or his wife actually actually parked the vehicle.
4.The claim states that the driver agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days which is wholly untrue, the defendant logged on to see what breaches had been alledged on receipt of the penalty charge and then followed advice to ignore the charge as it is common for companies to issue scam tickets to dupe motorists.

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 “private land” and it is unclear whether this is referring to the land the other side of the wall or the waste land behind the pavement.

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 proprietary 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

KeithP

You now need to remove all identifying information from your post.
E.g Claim number and your full name.

The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and can try and use your posts against you.

That Dropbox image of your Claim Form clearly shows your MCOL password.

You have signed up to Dropbox using your full name too.

Crazy!!

Coupon-mad

I looked at the link (but it needs editing!). The sign looks like the one in PCM v Bull:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

Please can everyone stop thinking 'agreed to pay' is something to argue about. REMOVE THIS because it is true that a contract can be performed and 'agreed' on private land on the day, by the conduct of parking alone (they are not saying the driver agreed in writing!):

4.The claim states that the driver agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days which is wholly untrue, the defendant logged on to see what breaches had been alleged on receipt of the penalty charge and then followed advice to ignore the charge as it is common for companies to issue scam tickets to dupe motorists.

You need to replace that entire point #4, with a point about prohibitive signs not being able to be dressed up as a contract.

Try searching the forum for:

defence PCM v Bull forbidding true

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, you have until Tuesday 28th May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

tolek

Thanks, a simple "you've missed hiding the password on the claim form" would have been a a better way of letting me know that I had missed one of the redactions but I appreciate you letting me know.

Amended now.

tolek

Thank you all for your replies. I have amended my defence as follows, opinions are much appreciated:

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 on a public road.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the owner of the vehicle is unsure whether he or his wife actually actually parked the vehicle.
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 “private land” and it is unclear whether this is referring to the land the other side of the wall or the waste land behind the pavement.
It is, therefore, denied that the Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
6. The signage does not demonstrate a map/boundary line or clear definition of the premises. The IPC code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point:
2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

7. 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.

8.Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

Coupon-mad

I don't think point #6 is relevant?

tolek

Thank you. Do you not think that i should mention that there is no clear identification of what area the sign refers to?