Es parking court claim

The_Deep

If you are trying to do this on a phone you will struggle, use a proper device.

Ruby82

Hi
I have been given 3 court letters due to 3tickets at different times
Is there anyway making them all 1claim

Redx

yes , acknowledge each one by doing the AOS online first

as part of your defence and subsequent dealings with the CCBC and your local court , you ask the judge to use their special powers to consolidate the 3 claims into one claim , until they do so

Ruby82

hi does anybody have any idea if I can use my gateway account for my spouse for AOS of a claim. Or do u have to have your own gateway account

Le_Kirk

You have to use your own as far as I know because you will have received log-in and password info from the CCBC and that will work with your name and Gateway account presumably. Not tried it so could be wrong - others may know for sure.

Ruby82

I am trying to write a defence but no good with the legal side, I have read the newbies thread, is there any templates or can I just write my own defence.

Coupon-mad

I think you haven't read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread and its 17 example defences?

Ruby82

Hi could anyone go through this defence,
I have tried my best to pick out points, I a'int very good at it so please do advise if there's any problem.
Thank u all for all your help.




IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

AND

(Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

I,XXXXXXXXXXXXX, make this statement believing the contents to be true and knowing that it will be placed before the Court as evidence.
However, I reserve my right to expand my evidence. Therefore, I seek permission to make a further statement if necessary to support my application and any future Court proceedings.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with XXXX with anyone with car insurance permitted to use it.
5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [ADDRESS], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss
This is a residential area since 2004, never has anyone needed a permit or has been obliged in the lease to permit to do so.
Till this day the bays were extra bays for contour residents and visitors as the sign states in the attached picture.
And I am still under that housing association.
nor any residents have received any correspondence prior to the claimant putting any signs up, neither through any letters.
As you can see from the picture the vehicle has no signs in front other than the bay beside.




Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."
signature and date

Le_Kirk

Your defence is just that no "statement" needed. Your points start at point 3. You cannot add to a defence later (well you can but there is a fee) unless you mean because the POC is lacking in detail, in which case, look at some of the example defences in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and you will find the exact wording. You don't have a point 4! I don't think you can claim loss or damage, that was shot to pieces by Beavis.

If the claimant has tried to charge a spurious £60 or more, search the forum for a thread about Abuse of Process by beamerguy with a comment at post #14 of that thread by Coupon-mad and add a summary of that.

Ruby82

oh sorry about the points, which I will amend.
thanks for pointing it out


so u want me to take out the following part which I added;


This is a residential area since 2004, never has anyone needed a permit or has been obliged in the lease to permit to do so.
Till this day the bays were extra bays for contour residents and visitors as the sign states in the attached picture.
And I am still under that housing association.
nor any residents have received any correspondence prior to the claimant putting any signs up, neither through any letters.
As you can see from the picture the vehicle has no signs in front other than the bay beside.