Preparation of Defence.

mukach72

It proved who the registered keeper is, where the vehicle was registered and that the PCNs went to a different address.

mukach72

If it doesn't serve my defence, should I remove it?

mukach72

So heres draft #3

In The County Court
Case number: XXXXXXXX
Claimant: Britannia Parking
Defendant: XXXXXXX
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 alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

3. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
(a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

4. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


6. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

7. 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.

7.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of £160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of £60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of £160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

10. 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.

11. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

12. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

13. 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 stated in the defence are true,
Name
Signature

mukach72

any thoughts on my latest draft?
Thanks in advance...

Castle

What is the exact name of the claimant?

mukach72

On the claim form it states :
BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP
LIMITED T/A BRITANNIA PARKING

Coupon-mad

Remove this which is clearly VCS-only and wrong for a Britannia PCN:

9. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

mukach72

Ready for submission? draft #4
thanks in advance!

In The County Court
Case number: XXXXXXXX
Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Limited
T/A Britannia Parking

Defendant: XXXXXXX
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 alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

3. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
(a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

4. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


6. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

7. 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.

7.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of £160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of £60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of £160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


9. 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.

10. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

11. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

12. 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 stated in the defence are true,
Name
Signature

mukach72

my final draft #5
recent addition 3.

In The County Court
Case number: XXXXXXXX
Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Limited
T/A Britannia Parking

Defendant: XXXXXXX
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 alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

3. The Defendant did not receive any notice from Britannia Parking relating to these PCN’s whatsoever. I would suggest there should be solid evidence of this notices were sent i.e (recorded delivery, tracking details, proof of postage) to show they had been delivered to the Defendant’s current address which is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

4. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
(a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

5. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

6. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


7. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

8. 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.

8.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of £160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of £60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of £160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


10. 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.

11. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

12. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

13. 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 stated in the defence are true,
Name
Signature

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

#3 has ''I'' and should be ''the Defendant''.

I would remove this:

8.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of £160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of £60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of £160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

And instead go for the point about fake costs in a more aggressive way, putting this lot of words (in my latest post there) as #13 onwards (numbering all paragraphs):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75922229#Comment_75922229

...especially because the latest strike out at Southampton, was re Britannia!
Scroll through the rest of that link and you will see.