Defence assistance

Big_Boi

Readytowin wrote: »

I will add something about DJ Grand and come back with a revision

Don't add something about DJ Grand, use exactly what Coupon-Mad kindly provided:

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

- In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


Statement of Truth:

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


Name

Signature


Date

Readytowin

Yes I did find that information Big Boi, thanks for including it here too though. Here is the revision - can anyone comment on the issue of it claiming unknown driver yet knowing the situation of the vehicle not actually being parked? Is this a bad idea or ok to leave in?

Also any other comments appreciated on how I have included the paragraphs on section 8, if it should be rearranged please let me know:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (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 XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was present but not parked on the material date in the car park allocated to Company National Car Parks Limited at XXXXXXXX. Due to the tightly spaced nature of the car park, other vehicles were stuck and had to manoeuvre themselves out of the way, through a large line of traffic already waiting to arrive, in order for other vehicles to leave their spaces. No space was found by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the day, so after waiting for some time they chose to leave without finding a space.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that it is in relation to a parking contravention, where there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked in the car park at all – only that it entered the car park then left 14 minutes later.

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. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.

6. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 state:
“By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not park, this would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states and there is no consent to the details being captured.

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. Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Version 7, Section 13, 13.1, states that drivers must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, they must be provided with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by a parking contract. The vehicle was present at the location for under 15 minutes and did not park – this time was taken by the vehicle searching for a space, waiting for others to leave.

9. 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.
To explain further the costs on the claim being disproportionate and disingenuous;
• CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
o (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
o (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
• Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
• The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
• Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.
• According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
• Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
• In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
• There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
• The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.



10. 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

Redx

Read my comments ,and those by beamerguy and bigboi about adding that post 14 by coupon mad in full, renumber until it's about 18 paragraphs

Don't ask, just do it

No problem with adding what you now know as keeper and defendant about what happened and why

tboo

Readytowin wrote: »

Yes I did find that information Big Boi, thanks for including it here too though. Here is the revision - can anyone comment on the issue of it claiming unknown driver yet knowing the situation of the vehicle not actually being parked? Is this a bad idea or ok to leave in?

Also any other comments appreciated on how I have included the paragraphs on section 8, if it should be rearranged please let me know:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (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 XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was present but not parked on the material date in the car park allocated to Company National Car Parks Limited at XXXXXXXX. Due to the tightly spaced nature of the car park, other vehicles were stuck and had to manoeuvre themselves out of the way, through a large line of traffic already waiting to arrive, in order for other vehicles to leave their spaces. No space was found [STRIKE]by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX[/STRIKE] on the day, so after waiting for some time the[STRIKE]y[/STRIKE] car left the carpark [STRIKE]chose to leave[/STRIKE] without finding a space.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that it is in relation to a parking contravention, where there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked in the car park at all – only that it entered the car park then left 14 minutes later.

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. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.

6. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 state:
“By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not park, this would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states and there is no consent to the details being captured.

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. Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Version 7, Section 13, 13.1, states that drivers must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, they must be provided with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by a parking contract. The vehicle was present at the location for under 15 minutes and did not park – this time was taken by the vehicle searching for a space, waiting for others to leave.

9. 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.
To explain further the costs on the claim being disproportionate and disingenuous;
• CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
o (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
o (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
• Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
• The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
• Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.
• According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
• Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
• In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
• There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
• The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.



10. 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

I could have been driving and you a passenger


If you're bothered amend it to something like this

Readytowin

I know that you do this all day long for free, for people that dont listen, and it must get super frustrating for you - but I thought I had done what you'd asked. If I knew to number it I would have done, I dont want to waste my own time either. I probably have as little time and patience for this as you do, although its more in my interests than yours to get it sorted, I am also not wanting to waste anyones time. I did read what was written and thought I'd done what was asked by including it. I'm sorry if I didnt get it right the first time by numbering it separately.

Thanks again for the advice though, I do appreciate the individual replies and everything that goes on in these forums. I guess this is ok as a final draft now as there arent any other changes commented so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (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 XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was present but not parked on the material date in the car park allocated to Company National Car Parks Limited at XXXXXXXX. Due to the tightly spaced nature of the car park, other vehicles were stuck and had to manoeuvre themselves out of the way, through a large line of traffic already waiting to arrive, in order for other vehicles to leave their spaces. No space was found by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the day, so after waiting for some time they chose to leave without finding a space.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that it is in relation to a parking contravention, where there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked in the car park at all – only that it entered the car park then left 14 minutes later.

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. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.

6. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 state:
“By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not park, this would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states and there is no consent to the details being captured.

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. Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Version 7, Section 13, 13.1, states that drivers must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, they must be provided with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by a parking contract. The vehicle was present at the location for under 15 minutes and did not park – this time was taken by the vehicle searching for a space, waiting for others to leave.

9. 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.

10. To explain further the costs on the claim being disproportionate and disingenuous;
CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
o (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
o (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

11. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

12. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

13. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.

14. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

15. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

16. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

17. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

18. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

10. 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 also 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

Readytowin

Thanks tboo, I will also amend to your suggestions

Redx

I did tell you to renumber in my first reply in post 2 so stop stamping your foot, lol ��

That looks ok to me so check it for any mistakes or improvements but you now seem to have an excellent defence for signing, dating and saving as a pdf to be emailed to the CCBC

The improvements by tboo are good too

Readytowin

Yes you did... I'll let you off then as I have become one of those people who do not read thoroughly... and I apologise :silenced::rotfl:

Thank you again. I have made the changes suggested by tboo and I will keep this thread updated with developments.

Can I ask, is it necessary for me to attend the court hearing or is my defence and subsequent witness statement enough without my presence? Being in another country it will be difficult but I can make it if it's needed.

Redx

No, but tell the court a couple of weeks before the hearing telling the judge that you want it heard on papers, do not tip anyone off beforehand

Readytowin

Ok, thank you, I might go just to see it all in action and jump up and down at the end!