KBT / Armtrac / BW Legal Pending Court Case

daxprime

Hi I've been reading different cases on and off for a while and I have already submitted my defence. Unfortunately I did not have time to post it on here before the submission date expired as my partner was taken ill and had to be rushed to hospital so I ended up submitting my case whilst sat in hospital with her. Bad timing all around really... it is what it is! She's better now

The Court has sent back the Notice of Proposed Allocation which is due to be filled out and sent back tomorrow.

Do I need to post my submitted defence directly in here as a post or attach it as a document or something else? I just want to figure out if I need to build up extra points before the hearing.

Thanks

Dax

Redx

post it directly below, minus any personal info or references, so no identifiers

its too late to change the defence, so read the NEWBIES faq sticky thread on what to do with that DQ

daxprime

Claim below. I realise there are points that probably mean nothing but this is the outcome of writing a defence after being awake for 36 hours on an NHS ward

---

1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

Particulars of Claim

3. The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
iii An amount matching the sum of claim within the Claim Court form

4. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought i.e. whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

Improper application of the initial PCN

6. At the time of the incident, the Defendant observed no PCN on the windscreen of the vehicle. After inspection of the contents of the Subject Access Request received by the Defendant on [REDACTED], it is observed that the original PCN was applied improperly to the windscreen and instead was clipped under the passenger side windscreen wiper. To allow for the driver to see a PCN, it is best practice that the PCN is applied in line-of-sight of the driver by affixing the notice to the windscreen directly in front of the driver’s seat.

7. It is therefore assumed that the improper placement of the PCN resulted in the PCN falling off of the vehicle when the windscreen wipers were operated due to the weather conditions at the time. It is also assumed that this is the reason the PCN was not seen by the Defendant when entering the vehicle.

Lack of correspondence

8. No form of correspondence was received by the Defendant within the initial appeals time frame of 21 days from the Claimant which resulted in there being no time for the Defendant to properly appeal their case prior to it being handed to collections. The first and only letter received from the Claimant was delivered via recorded delivery on [REDACTED] stating that the appeals time had passed and that unless a sum of £100 is paid, the fine would be passed to collections. This is 4 months after the alleged contravention.

No right to appeal

9. Points 6,7 and 8 combined form a barrier to appeal within the aforementioned appeals time frame of 21 days and, as a result, any evidence such as a valid parking ticket or other valid permissions to park have been discarded.

Improper use of signage

10. 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 terms on the Claimant's signage are also 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.

No legally binding contract

12. 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 when parking at [REDACTED] on [REDACTED]. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

13. In any event, it is denied that the signage used by this claimant at the time of the alleged contravention, could have created a fair or transparent contract. The signage and road markings were inconsistent, confusing, unclear and hence incapable of binding the driver, thus distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis.

Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. The claim includes an additional £60 ‘Contractual Costs’ for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at “double recovery”. In addition, these costs not permitted under CPR 27.14

15. In the alternative, it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.

No locus standi

16. 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.

17. It is believed that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied by the Claimant until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

18. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

19. 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.

As an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case.

Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

---

End of Defence

Coupon-mad

That's good. it covered all the bases you need to build on at WS & evidence stage.

What was the alleged contravention, the usual 'Armtrac speciality' of fluttering tickets of their own doing, due to deliberate flimsiness?

daxprime

Delayed response - apologies! Deliberate flimsiness indeed!

I have heard nothing since my court questionnaire which was approx. 4 weeks ago. Does Allocation take a while to process?