Help with new claim please!!

Redx

add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad in the thread by beamerguy, which will double the length of the defence


inform everybody in the loop about change of address, already told you this earlier

[Deleted User]

You can use a form N434 (normally used for a change of lawyer, but also change of office addresses).

Freestyle para A by writing "Defendants change of address" and complete the new address in the box provided, being sure to send a copy to the claimant and the court as directed (tick box C to confirm)

The_Deep

You have not mentioned the Equality Act, this is a very useful card in your hand.

Why have you said that you were the driver? When your OP says it was your disabled father?

Two out of ten, you need to revisit this imo.

Dizzie1988

Thanks KeithP

I will amend and repost.

PCN was £100.00 then the cost went up to £160.00. Should I just state £100?

Dizzie1988

Dizzie1988 wrote: »

Thanks KeithP

I will amend and repost.

PCN was £100.00 then the cost went up to £160.00. Should I just state £100?

Thank you The Deep

Any templates for paragraphs on Equality act for defence statement? Been looking through all th examples but cannot see anything.

Le_Kirk

Try "Search this Forum" on front page of the forum, use Advanced Search, put Coupon-mad as user name and Equality Act as your search words, change the radio button from threads to posts. Coupon-mad often posts useful info concerning Equality Act.

Dizzie1988

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the feedback and areas to improve. Please see 2nd draft. I will await any further comments before submitting. Could not see any templates for failure of transfer liability from driver to keeper?

In The County Court
Claim No:
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number … on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. The facts of matter are that the driver was a disabled person and I refer to the The Equality Act 2010 which states that you must not be discriminated against because:
-you have a disability
-someone thinks you have a disability (this is known as discrimination by perception)
-you are connected to someone with a disability (this is known as discrimination by association)

Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on all employers to make "reasonable adjustments" that places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with people who are not disabled. The driver had a clear visible and valid disability parking permit displayed in the windscreen.

4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. The Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 £100.00

6.Further and in the alternative, 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 especially at night. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

7. 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.

-8. 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. All debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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...''

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.



Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

Just modify this: -

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

to this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here the defendant quotes from the cited cases: -
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

This is to ensure that the judge sees you are quoting from the previous cases rather than issuing orders/instructions to the court.

Dizzie1988

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Just modify this: -

to this: -This is to ensure that the judge sees you are quoting from the previous cases rather than issuing orders/instructions to the court.

Thank you I have adjusted this.

Just realised this is a lease vehicle and I am not the registered keeper so no.1 has been re-worded:

1. The Defendant was the named hirer of vehicle registration number … on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

Redx

Do the edits in the above draft defence, so it is honed as replies come in

Seems reasonable to me, so look for any other errors etc