Urgent advice needed - County Court Claim.

Resourceful

Thanks Keith. Don't worry, the deadline is etched in my mind. I've hardly been able to think about anything else. By hook or by crook I'll get it in on time!

Resourceful

Help! Sorry, I'm struggling with my defence content and the panic is starting to set in. (My little one is also wondering why I want to spend the whole of Father's Day sat at my computer...I hope you feel guilty PE!)

Here's my sticking point. I've read several other defences (including some very long ones) and they all seem to have solid reasons for defending themselves, e.g non displayed but valid permit, shopping (with receipt) in retail park, registered hotel booking, etc. In my case I accidentally strayed into the car park (in the darkness) to enable easier loading of my car after a band performance so I'm having difficulty coming up with any argument other than the non-existent lighting and possibly no legitimate interest. Can I really submit a defence with only two paragraphs and expect to win?

EDIT 1: (5:12am...!) I've just read Bargepole's Irrelevant Defence Arguments. He cites 'I didn't see the signs' as a pointless argument but in my case I genuinely didn't see the signs as it was so dark and the car park and signs were unlit. Can I still use this argument? It's about the only thing I've got!

Resourceful

10:15am...still at it!) Okay, I now have a draft defence so will post it here for critique/ammendments as soon as I see some 'familiar faces' online. I only have until 4pm today to submit it so if you've been following my thread and are able to help please reply urgently to this post so I can move things forward. Many thanks in advance.

Resourceful

Okay so it doesn't look like any of the regulars that have helped so far are online at the moment so as I need to get my defence in by 4pm today is there anybody else out there with some experience who could look over my rough draft for some constuctive criticism? Thanks all!

KeithP

No-one can possibly comment on your Defence if you don't show it, can they?

Resourceful

I was just waiting for someone to show up first so that I didn't post it then watch it slide down to page 4 or 5 of the forum! Thanks Keith. I'll put it up now.

Resourceful

Mostly copied from Bargepole's concise defence as suggested by Coupon-mad. I've starred a couple of paragraphs that I'm not sure about. Please feel free to tear it apart/edit. Thanks

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING EYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxx (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, entered the car park soley for the purpose of loading and was parked for less than thirty minutes before leaving. (Grace period argument??)

*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. (Do I need this??)

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 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.

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. Additionally, at the time of the alleged infringement, the car park was in complete darkness so no signs were visible. Subsequent investigation has revealed there are no lights at all on site. (PE maintain that ambient light from other sources is sufficient to light the car park but I dispute that claim. ANPR photos show the entrance to be completely dark at the time of the vehicle's entry/exit.)

8. 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.

9. The Defendant was working at Bournemouth Air Festival, an event for which the car park landowners, Bournemouth Highcliff Marriot Hotel, are one of the main sponsors. As such, the Hotel have been contacted to cancel the PCN and it is believed therefore that the Claimant has no legitimate interest or commercial justification for pursuing this charge.

*and the Beavis case is fully distinguished in this regard and due to unlit/unseen terms in the darkness. (Where does this bit go??)

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 £50 legal representative's costs which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name xxxxxxxxx

Signature

Date 16-6-2019

Quentin

Your 9 is - admitting driver and defendant are one and the same - did you make a typo??

Resourceful

Thanks Quentin. They already know I was the driver (made that mistake early on) but suppose it could be changed in case they've forgotten. Presumably just change Defendant to Driver? I suppose it wouldn't hurt or would that be perverting the course of justice...?

Le_Kirk

You can remove those spurious !!!!8220 as they were as a result of a forum glitch last year.

but I dispute that claim

Should be: -

but [strike]I[/strike] the defendant disputes that claim

Cannot help with the Beavis bit, sorry but wasn't this all about a free car park in a shopping centre not at a hotel? Search the forum or check out the Bargepole and other defences in post # 2 of the NEWBIE thread.