Claim Form From County Court Business Centre

priraw

KeithP wrote: »

Where did you find that old Defence?

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 were replaced in October 2015 by The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Ohh

I got that from one of the defence example link from the Newbies thread

Shall I replace it with The Consumer Rights Act 2015?

KeithP

I don't think it is going to be as simple as that.

To my untrained eye that, in part, looks more like a Witness Statement than a Defence.

I'll leave it for others to comment further.

Without looking back over the rest of your thread, does the Claimant already know the identity of the driver?

priraw

KeithP wrote: »

I don't think it is going to be as simple as that.

To my untrained eye that, in part, looks more like a Witness Statement than a Defence.

I'll leave it for others to comment further.

Without looking back over the rest of your thread, does the Claimant already know the identity of the driver?

yes the claimant knows identity of the driver. When I got the PCN on my name I defended it stating the half an hour free rule unknowing that this was for another Car Park. So yes in a way I agreed being driver as I was appealing saying that I parked because of this reason.

priraw

KeithP wrote: »

I don't think it is going to be as simple as that.

To my untrained eye that, in part, looks more like a Witness Statement than a Defence.

I'll leave it for others to comment further.

Without looking back over the rest of your thread, does the Claimant already know the identity of the driver?

I have now edited the defence above and made it short.

Please can you review now

Redx

Looks like a witness statement to me as well, not a defence

Perhaps start with the defence examples by bargepole

priraw

Redx wrote: »

Looks like a witness statement to me as well, not a defence

Perhaps start with the defence examples by bargepole

Thanks for your feedback. I have revised it more. Please see the edited defence above... would appreciate if you can provide any more pointers

Coupon-mad

That defence is OK in your case now, but to be clear, I would add:

1.3 for the avoidance of doubt, there are two car parks leading into each other and it is averred that ParkingEye's ANPR cameras are unlawfully capturing cars driving though and parking in a separate, non-ParkingEye car park. This should not be possible but it is happening at this location. ParkingEye are in breach of the GDPR by capturing, storing and wrongfully processing images of cars and drivers who never park int their car park at all. This is wholly unreasonable conduct and there is no cause of action against the Defendant.

ActiveSec

priraw - how did your case go? As we have had a PCN for a similar reason at Harrow Hall

Le_Kirk

The OP has not been on the forum since the 4th July and at that point had not told us whether or not the defence had been submitted. It is normal to see questions about DQ and Witness Statement following submission of defence but we have seen nothing which suggests that there has been no case yet.

priraw

ActiveSec wrote: »

priraw - how did your case go? As we have had a PCN for a similar reason at Harrow Hall

I received letter from court early this month. They have sent court hearing Date.

Today I got response from PE on my defence.

Can you kindly share what have they charged you for and whats your appeal argument please?