Parking Eye Court Claim - Defence help - deadline 25 July to submit - cannot find similar on forum

nosferatu1001

Concise is better than verbose
A judge will be reading it so make it as easy to read as possible. Pare it back to the bare minimum, no waggle.

THe defence is fairly generic. Youre NOT reading the bit at the top which TELLS YOU that you are not looing for a specific defence.

Kvotheraven

Thank you all. Before I send the defence tonight, can I confirm that I can pursue a defence that Parking Eye (on behalf of Landowner The Range) cannot legitimately claim a "loss of earnings" because of my overstay? There were many spare spaces in the car park (meaning no one was unable to fulfil a transaction at The Range by being unable to park), I have made purchases in the store and I have valid reasons for overstay too?

Thank you

Kvotheraven

Also, is the reason my defence has until 4pm on Monday 29 July to be filed, and not 4pm on Saturday 27 July (which is 28 days from issue date plus 5 days) because it falls on a weekend?

Redx

Kvotheraven wrote: »

Also, is the reason my defence has until 4pm on Monday 29 July to be filed, and not 4pm on Saturday 27 July (which is 28 days from issue date plus 5 days) because it falls on a weekend?

Correct, if KeithP has given you his usual advice, then he will be correct

Redx

Kvotheraven wrote: »

Thank you all. Before I send the defence tonight, can I confirm that I can pursue a defence that Parking Eye (on behalf of Landowner The Range) cannot legitimately claim a "loss of earnings" because of my overstay? There were many spare spaces in the car park (meaning no one was unable to fulfil a transaction at The Range by being unable to park), I have made purchases in the store and I have valid reasons for overstay too?

Thank you

it did not work for Barry Beavis who overstayed on a free for 2 hours car park , so loss of earnings wasn't the issue for PE , the breaking of the rules was

DoaM

PE signage is probably a key defence point. I imagine their signs at The Range are similar to their signs in Aldi car parks ... small, high up, and lots of small font text which is impossible to read. Therefore their signs cannot create a contractual relationship.

Etc.
Etc.

Redx

I would be very surprised if the range were the Landowner, more likely that they are not the landowner

No landowner authority and poor and inadequate signage (unlike Beavis) are 2 of the main defence points, plus POFA if they failed it

Address the POC as well

Reading the defence posted earlier it looks more like a witness statement than a defence, especially all the first person stuff

The WS can come later, for now a judge wants it to contain the legal arguments and not war and peace

Kvotheraven

You guys are awesome. Thank you

Kvotheraven

If one of you legends could now cast your eye over this amended version of my defence before I send it off I would be so grateful:

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No: xxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant was in a capacity as carer for a person with severe and long term mental health anxiety, a debilitating condition which caused the trip to take longer by virtue of the symptoms at the time, from his condition. Severe ongoing/repeating anxiety meets the definition of disability within the Equality Act 2010 section 6(1) (EA 2010 from hereon) and service providers are required to allow reasonable adjustments for people and carers of people with such 'protected characteristics' (EA 2010 S.29 (7a)). The Act states that any attempt to restrict consumer rights under the Act. The

3. The defendant is being subjected to discrimination by association as defined in chapter 4.19 of EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice (EA CoP from hereon).

4. The claimant cannot justify an arbitrary time limit that causes detriment to disabled people - and nor can they be lawfully heard to say that they 'did not know' about the medical condition of the person cared for by the defendent because the Act sets out illegal conduct including by 'indirect discrimination' (EA 2010 S.19).

5. The claimant has a legal duty to adhere to this Act and must make anticipatory adjustments of fixed policies for the protected population and carers at large (EA CoP chapter 7.20-22).

6. No reasonable adjustment was made by the Claimant despite being required by EA CoP (chapter 5.37). No risk assessment has been made to take the needs of people with protected characteristics and their carers into account at the time of starting and ending the contract. The Claimant will be unable to demonstrate strict proof that they have allowed more time than able bodied/unprotected people would need.

7. The law applies as much to inflexible arbitrary time limits as it does to physical adjustments at any consumer-facing location (per example in EA CoP chapter 5 on 'tours').

8. Furthermore, 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 attempting to read them.

9. The Particulars of Claim state that those who park on site agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the signage. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing or stationary vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the font would be unable to do so easily, even outside the vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10. The judgement of ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) makes clear that if a driver has not had ample opportunity to become acquainted with the full contractual terms then the unincurred costs of a private parking company is considered a penalty or unfair consumer charge.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.



I have left off entirely the loss of earnings argument.

KeithP

Kvotheraven wrote: »

Also, is the reason my defence has until 4pm on Monday 29 July to be filed, and not 4pm on Saturday 27 July (which is 28 days from issue date plus 5 days) because it falls on a weekend?

Yes.

It's in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide.

On page 14 of that document it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue.

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).