County Court Defence Help Please

dollydoodar

i know i need to stick to legal matters when submitting a defence but i keep thinking about the fact that this car park used to be free for disabled people until CEL took over and i for one was unaware of this change, i guess that relates to inadequate signage. should i add this information to the signage part of the defence? should i send a copy of the local newspaper article about the complaints that were made when CEL took over?

Le_Kirk

If car park conditions change (particularly from free to paid) there should be a grace period and there should be extra signs put up (beforehand I think) warning motorists of the change. Check the relevant COP, either BPA or IPC.

dollydoodar

i sent the SAR via email yesterday but i haven't even received an acknowledgment...just sent a message asking for one...not sure what else i can do?

Quentin

Be patient

They are unlikely to reply back by return!

Don't delay your defence!

dollydoodar

can someone please tell me how long it usually takes for the SAR to arrive? will they send an email?

Redx

Your SAR stated 30 days, that is the time allowed, so that is your answer

dollydoodar

what will i do if i don't receive it before the defence deadline?

KeithP

dollydoodar wrote: »

what will i do if i don't receive it before the defence deadline?

Create your Defence without it.

As Quentin said two days ago:

Quentin wrote: »

Don't delay your defence!

Before May 2018 no-one sent a Subject Access Request because it cost £10 a throw.

dollydoodar

this is the best defence i could come up with, i do not feel comfortable about slagging off cel for wasting everyone's time. do you think that will that go down well?


Defence:
IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:
xxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant).

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

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.!

3.The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxxxx by xxxxxxx was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.!

4. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.!

4.1. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.!

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that 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.!

6. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.!


No standing or landowner authority!

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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.!


No legitimate interest or commercial justification!

8. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.!

8.1. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.!


Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process!

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.!

9.1 In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of its claim by adding purported but unsupported damages, admin, debt collector fees and interest, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred at all. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) contractual parking charge of £100 but the sum on the claim form is more than two times this sum. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.!

10. The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs.!

10.1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognisable claim in law.!

11. When Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) or alternatively, for the hearing fee to be ordered to be paid before exchange of documents between the parties, because where a claim from this serial Claimant is robustly defended, this Claimant routinely discontinues after seeing a Defendant's Witness Statement and never pays the court hearing fee.!

12. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.!

13. 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.!

Le_Kirk

Search the forum for Abuse of Process posted by beamerguy and with a comment at post #14 by Coupon-mad. Add that into you defence to strengthen your claim to have the case struck out. Make sure you show the "IT IS ORDERED THAT.........." as a QUOTE from the district judges on IOW and at Southampton rather than an order or instruction to the court/judge.