County court letter - help please

Coupon-mad

pongo007 wrote: »

can anyone advise me on the best way to formulate my defence? shall i cherry pick from others on here? its all very legal jargon - most of which i dnt understand !!

Copy another ParkingEye one, but state this as point #1:

The Defendant was not the driver, nor the owner, not the registered keeper and the Defendant was named in error by the registered keeper who was struggling to recall the event.

Get your Dad (later) to do a witness statement confirming he named you in error and struggled to recall an unremarkable event, given the fact that this Claimant doesn't put PCNs on windscreens, so that the first a keeper knows about any allegation is weeks later and the location is vaguely stated, so does not assist. He could even add that he has since recalled it was a pub car park, where a driver has to put their VRN into a machine in the bar but nobody told him about this and the signage was far from prominent and a keypad on the bar was nowhere to be found and people had no idea about any contract.

But this comes later - WS & evidence is later.

For now, as the base for your defence draft, use the hidden keypad ParkingEye Odeon defence example, of course! How did you miss that one? It's right there in the NEWBIES thread and only needs your bit added at the top and making sure it doesn't say 'the Defendant did this' (because you didn't, the keeper your Dad did).

pongo007

Hi
Just ploughing through all the information on here and will post my defence when I have compiled it all !
I have got a friend to take pics of the signage at the pub and they are small and only nailed to the brick wall every 3 car spaces. We used the bar and had a meal - do i need to prove this ? Also - a man in York complained and this went into the press about 3 months before we were there. The person who ran the pub got it annulled because of inadequate signage. Is it too late to also do this? Should I use the pictures as evidence? Should I mention this complaint in the press?

I will definitely state that I am not the keeper and that Dad named me incorrectly as he didnt know my partner would be driving and could not remember that date anyway.

I cannot find the hidden keypad ParkingEye Odeon ... am i doing something wrong?

Sorry to be a pain

Redx

use a laptop, not a phone , study the NEWBIES thread post #2 , study all the descriptions for defences, especiallyl the ODEON one


(I went to Specsavers recently, so I can definitely see it with my new ones)


ideally , get a pub or landowner statement backing up your story and stating they do now wish you to be taken to court , its NEVER too late to do this

get any and all evidence to support your case, including proof of patronage

Le_Kirk

Whilst it is correctly written as ParkingEye in your post, search also for Parking Eye as posters often use this term.

Redx

Or search the word Odeon

Coupon-mad

I cannot find the hidden keypad ParkingEye Odeon ... am i doing something wrong?

You didn't simply put the word Odeon into Control & F (on your PC keyboard) to find the right place, when viewing the NEWBIES thread?

I just did, it's there clear as day!

pongo007

Please cab you take a look over this and let me know what to alter or change ? thank you
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NUMBER
BETWEEN:
CIVIL ENFORCMENT LIMITED (CLAIMANT)
And
(DEFENDANT)

DEFENCE
• The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed,
or at all.

• The particulars of the claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle . These assertions are both incorrect. The claimant is seeking to hold me liable, but I am not the Registered Keeper and I notified the Claimant I was not the driver. The Registered Keeper incorrectly named me as the driver in error as they struggled to recall the event. Consequently, the Claimant has no cause of action and the claim must fail for this reason alone.

• The Defendant denies that the signs at this location meet the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are ‘bound to be seen’ or set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

• The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility. The day in question we were having a meal at the Cross Keys public house and were not alerted to give the vehicle number plate to staff.

• The Defendant has already proved that patronage, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and iPad that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a PCN that was not properly issued from the outset. 4. According to the sparse signs in this car park, it now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge and despite there being no Pay & Display machines or similar, visitors were expected to know to input their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This was far from clearly signed and the purported keypad was nowhere to be seen.

• Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant researched this all too common issue and has discovered from the York County Press February 2018 that we could have complained to the landowner. Unsurprisingly, this was conspicuous by its absence as an option offered by ParkingEye in their signs or paperwork, prior to commencing proceedings.

• This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, ParkingEye themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self-regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.


• At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by trespass, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting a vehicle to trespass. Not only is this nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye versus Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or trespass.


• The Protections of Freedom 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 the keeper in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £171.16 for which no calculation or explanation Is given, and which appears to be an attempt to double recovery.

• In summary it is the Defendants position that the claim discloses no course 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.

Quentin

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal your identity


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you


Urgently edit your post to remove all the identifying details you have included

KeithP

Is that your full name you have just posted?

If so, protect your privacy and obliterate it.

And to the same with the Claim Number and vehicle registration number.

Redx

Looks more like a witness statement than a defence

And remove all of the personal details