ZZPS, QDR Solicitors

Jdok83

Apologies Waamo. The issue date on the claim for is 17/07/19. Yes, it is from the County Court Business centre. Driver has not been identified. First time ever attempting something like this so apologies if I appear incompetent.

KeithP

Jdok83 wrote: »

The issue date on the claim for is 17/07/19. Yes, it is from the County Court Business centre.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, you had until Monday 5th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service. I am going to assume you did the Acknowledgement of Service by that date. Please confirm.

Having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Jdok83

Yes AOS was completed. I followed the steps in the newbie thread. Thank you all again so much. Will post a draft in the next few days. I'm hoping Waamo is correct and they discontinue last minute.

Jdok83

Hi again guys

I messaged the gym to confirm that the driver was an active member and was at the gym at the time of the parking award. They have acknowledged the request and sent an email confirming this and also states that as a member parking free up to 3 hours is permitted while using the gym, not a 1 hour allowance as claimed by CEL. The question now is what is the best line of defence? To deny responsibility as per the template previously posted or to use protection from the retailers confirmation of gym attendance?

Thank you

beamerguy

Jdok83 wrote: »

Hi again guys

I messaged the gym to confirm that the driver was an active member and was at the gym at the time of the parking award. They have acknowledged the request and sent an email confirming this and also states that as a member parking free up to 3 hours is permitted while using the gym, not a 1 hour allowance as claimed by CEL. The question now is what is the best line of defence? To deny responsibility as per the template previously posted or to use protection from the retailers confirmation of gym attendance?

Thank you

This is an easy one, you provide the court with the email from the Gym. This will be viewed as timewastng by CEL.
Get your costs schedule ready

Once CEL see this they will probably discontinue and if they don't, they can expect another whooping by the judge

Once they discontinue, double check with the court as CEL are blantant liars

KeithP

Six days ago I wrote:

...you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

You now have less than five days and still no sign of a draft Defence from you.

Post your draft here for critique when you are ready and keep in mind that some people have better things to do at a weekend than read defences.

Jdok83

Ok

I need to change the particulars and amounts etc, but I think this is a relevant defence. I have an email from the gym in pdf and a photo of the inadequate signage. From what I have read in the newbie thread am I right in thinking these get sent as attachments with your defence on mcol?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, 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.

5. 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.
6. 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.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon a hidden keypad
10. 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.
11. The retailer has stated that clients in use of the facilities are permitted to park vehicles for a stay of three hours. The keeper of the vehicle was an active member at the gym at the time the claimant has alleged a breech of their contract took place
12. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

From what I have read in the newbie thread am I right in thinking these get sent as attachments with your defence on mcol?

You are wrong to think that and I cannot understand how you worked that out from the NEWBIES thread.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, gets sent with a Defence.

Evidence comes later.


And please don't file your Defence via MCOL.

Jdok83

In regards to the defence wording, am I in the right ball park?

Coupon-mad

!!!8220
!!!8221

Don't copy the 2018 forum glitches! Remove those.

And the claimant heading in your draft is showing the wrong parking firm.

10. 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.

If this is what it is about, you'd be far better to copy & adapt the ParkingEye/Odeon 'hidden keypad' specific defence example clearly linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2. That's why they are there.