Advice regarding defence statement vs Excel

mmmr

Hi
Having made some mistakes in the previous stages I am now in the expected stage of claim (Northampton county court business centre). Issue date 19/07/19. I did AoS online.

Particulars of claim:
The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. the defendant's vehicle, xxxxxx, was identified in the xxxx xxx Pay & Display Car Park on the xx/01/19 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically details the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interests.

Amount claimed: £160
Court fee: £25

I am going away in 2 days (wont have internet access) and so will be filing the below defence as per the bargepole consice defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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. 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. This is further compounded by the lack of lighting at night. 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 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.

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. 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

I am largely going to be defending on signage as keeper. As well as the usual issues with signage the car park is largely unlit as are many of the sign - and the alleged incident occurred at night.
I realise thats not much to go on. But looking to see if any glaring mistakes?
Thanks

Coupon-mad

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

I assume you will change this to Excel Parking Services Ltd?

That defence is a good base but you've added no facts to explain why the driver did not pay and display, or did they and the keypad registered a typo in the VRN, or what?

Which car park was this at and what happened?

Your defence must address the Particulars of Claim and admit or deny each point.

KeithP

mmmr wrote: »

Issue date 19/07/19. I did AoS online.

I am going to assume you did the Acknowledgement of Service before Wednesday 7th August. Please confirm.


With a Claim Issue Date of 19th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

mmmr

Firstly thank you for your replies.
Yes AoS well before 7th August.

It's George Street car park in Wakefield.
Driver expected to stop for less than 10mins. Usually stop on street but street parking was full. So driver stopped in here. NTK/PCN shows ANPR images with entry just after 7pm and stay of 26min. Driver had gotten delayed and wasn't sure how long they had stayed and wasn't sure if it was a 24h pay display as the street parking is free after 6pm. Driver said that had tried to read the available lit signs but couldn't work out the rules and in particular how enforced. So driver error, should have paid as unsure.
Appealed excel as keeper as per newbies post at NTK/pcn. Got rejected. Ignored IAS.
LBC stage handled wrongly as ended up on the thread from 2013.

Anything in particular regarding that PoC that I need to include in the defense statement? To my newbie eyes I thought I had.

The_Deep

.Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

mmmr wrote: »

Firstly thank you for your replies.
Yes AoS well before 7th August.

It's George Street car park in Wakefield.
Driver expected to stop for less than 10mins. Usually stop on street but street parking was full. So driver stopped in here. NTK/PCN shows ANPR images with entry just after 7pm and stay of 26min. Driver had gotten delayed and wasn't sure how long they had stayed and wasn't sure if it was a 24h pay display as the street parking is free after 6pm. Driver said that had tried to read the available lit signs but couldn't work out the rules and in particular how enforced. So driver error, should have paid as unsure.
Appealed excel as keeper as per newbies post at NTK/pcn. Got rejected. Ignored IAS.
LBC stage handled wrongly as ended up on the thread from 2013.

Anything in particular regarding that PoC that I need to include in the defense statement? To my newbie eyes I thought I had.

OK, but I didn't see anything dealing with the above in the defence, and you need that.

As for the POC you just admit or deny stuff that is known, such as if you were the driver and prefer to defend from that standpoint (and forget the POFA) then admit you were driving and talk about the signs being sparse and unclear. OR conversely if you've never said who was driving and prefer to use the POFA to cite 'no keeper liability' in your defence, then admit being the registered keeper (and if you were not driving, say so clearly, but no lies).

You can search the forum for George Excel to find other defences re that site.

mmmr

Thank you again for your advice.
I believe i have taken it on board and below is the defence that i plan to submit tonight. (I wont have internet access from tomorrow -abroad)

DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and accepted that vehicle was in the George street car park for a period of 26 minutes on the night in question.

3. 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. The incident happened at night and the car park is poorly lit including the signs. Some of the signs and parts of the car park are not lit; severely hampering attempts to read the signage.

4. 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. This is further compounded by the lack of lighting at night. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought. 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.

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, 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. 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


Any last words of advice?

beamerguy

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

You need to make a lot more of this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081

POST # 14 BY COUPON-MAD

Please use the text

mmmr

Thank you.
You guys do amazing work. I have added Coupon-mad's piece.

mmmr

Sent as per KeithP's instructions - have received auto - reply.