County court claim - private parking solutions london

kinom

Ok, BrownTrout, Thanks.
Any reason in particular why it would be a bad idea?

I'm struggling with defence, all the prepared ones I found do not fit my case and last thing I need is to upset the judge with a silly defence and have to pay the claimant defence costs.

I still feel I'm being ripped off and scammed regardless of all this, but I'm thinking of damage limitation.

beamerguy

kinom wrote: »

Ok, BrownTrout, Thanks.
Any reason in particular why it would be a bad idea?

I'm struggling with defence, all the prepared ones I found do not fit my case and last thing I need is to upset the judge with a silly defence and have to pay the claimant defence costs.

I still feel I'm being ripped off and scammed regardless of all this, but I'm thinking of damage limitation.

Look, Rafina solicitors are new kids on the block in the parking scam.

They will follow in the infamous 4 other legals footsteps who are getting spanked in court

What Rafina don't realise is that the parking scam could destroy them and google will be full of negative stuff about them

BrownTrout

One of the defences will be absolutely fine, you need to highlight no obvious signage

kinom

I went to survey the location and saw the signage in daylight, I also have a picture from when I supposedly "entered in contract" with a sign infront of the car. I really did not see the sign at night.

here is one of the pictures.
(can't paste links, just add www infront of the link)
'dropbox.com/s/w0geh9snpo3imue/image_262353.jpg?dl=0'

Coupon-mad

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w0geh9snpo3imue/image_262353.jpg?dl=0

Where on that sign do you see the £100 'parking charge' at all, let alone in the largest lettering and lit?!

What contract has been agreed, what terms are legible?

kinom

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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 was the registered keeper, was parked on a parking space at the address XXXXXX on the date XXXX at xxxx PM.
At this time the claimant issued the defendant with a PCN stating breach of contract, the defendant disputes this assertion on the basis that no contract was entered, due to the fact that it was not possible, on the day and time the PCN was issued, to read the signage that implies such contract. Such signage was illegible due to a combination of small print font and the fact that it was dark and the area had no illumination.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXX. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read, the lack of illumination meant it would not have been possible to see and read the signage after dusk, this is when the terms of the contract were supposedly breached. 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 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given, all of which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover, this has also been confirmed by court case numbers F0DP201T and FTQZ4W28.

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

Le_Kirk

Good as far as it goes, as you have picked one of the standard defences from the NEWBIE sticky. Does it cover everything that the PPC claims in the POC (as written in the claim)? You should read THIS thread by beamerguy and use the words at post # 14 by Coupon-mad to assist your point 8.

kinom

Thank you very much, I think it references all in the POC (172£ amount claimed, 25£ court fee, 50£ legal representation, total 247£).

The additional cost in the POC is a very good point and thanks for showing me that post.
I have updated my defence (post above) with wording that references abuse of process.
Do you think the wording at point 8 is sufficient?

I also plan to reference and put "abuse of process" in my witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Your version is concise & good and can be expanded on at WS stage.

The only thing I don't see is enough facts:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on a parking space at the address XXXXXX on the date XXXX at xxxx pm.

None of the above tells the Judge anything about why a PCN was issued and what happened and why you are not liable.

Bowbow.

I received a parking ticket in tesco car park, Ruislip Manor, Middlesex. The pcn was for parking and not using the facility/ parking in the click and collect, and not using click and collect. After the pcn being past to a debt collection company.. who were very unhelpful about the situation. I contacted tesco directly, who informed me that the land at this tesco is owned by them and there should not be any parking enforcement at all.. I informed them of the name of this company and they replied.. we do not know of this company and they do not work for us!! ?????? Please someone explain!!