Letter Before Claim - Gladstone Solicitors

Humphrey0106

Thanks, Coupon-mad. Really appreciate the advice.

Humphrey0106

Hello again all,

Hoping to get my defence finished and sent off today.

I'm sure this is probably a moot point, but is there any mileage in me mentioning in my defence about the fact the parking warden was sitting in a car parked in one of the legitimate parking spaces in the car park (directly opposite and thus in perfect view of the offending area where i parked), thus preventing customers like myself from being able to use it? The rational side of me acknowledges that as an employee of the car park operator he had every right to be there, but I cant help but feel this is... well, unfair. Obviously simple unfairness is not going to hold in a legal setting but I just wondered if you're aware of anyone using this as part of their defence before and how they presented it? Obviously, i don't want to put anything irrelevant which might undermine my case.

Thanks again for any honest advice.

Umkomaas

It is irrelevant. Forget it.

Humphrey0106

Ok, thanks.

Humphrey0106

I've come up with a draft defence, as below. This is very concise and based on a defence seen in another thread. This particular defence appealed to me due to its concise nature and just keeping to the salient points.
I've obviously alerted it to fit to my circumstances.
After spending hours and hours reading, I feel somewhat nervous sharing this especially as it is rather short. I do hope it covers the necessary points.


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a regular visitor to Horton Retail Park, being employed at the local XXXX XXXX Hospital and also being a longstanding resident within the borough. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a total of eleven bays all of which are of equal size. All but one of these bays consist of three parking spaces which are, poorly, defined by grey coloured block paving which is not clearly visible alongside the darkly coloured brick amongst which they sit. The Claimant has accused the Defendant of parking the aforementioned vehicle in an area within a bay which does not constitute a defined parking space. Given the lack of clarity regarding how or where parking is permitted in this area, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the Contra Proferentem principle.
3. Furthermore, the poorly visible markings, mentioned in the paragraph above, which are intended to represent the boundary of each induvial parking space represents a breach of Paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.
4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. 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. As a third party agent, 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.
6.. 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.
7. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date


Any advice would be greatly received.
Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Looks fine at defence stage (WS will be more detailed stuff) except for commas here:

three parking spaces which are, poorly, defined

And you need to add a point about promissory estoppel (search the forum) due to this that you need to tell the Judge:

He seemed reasonable and said he'd cancel the ticket on this occasion. Low and behold, a couple of days later a PCN arrived through the post.

Also, add a point about their sparse signs with terms and the actual parking charge being in the smallest font (we know this is true, no need to go back and check!).

Never do a parking charge defence without saying the signs are pants!

Humphrey0106

Many thanks Coupon-mad. I'll have another look at it later and make those amendments.