Defence help please

MichC

Hi all ,I have used one of the template defences on here as I want to get this off tomorrow , thoughts please ?


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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company Topps Tiles at Station Road Loughton Business Park, and had a valid right to be parked in that bay. The driver visited ALL 3 stores in the retail park and the vehicle was parked for less than the 2 hour maximum stay period. As this site is a non parking meter site there could be no loss of monies as no overstay has been accused or breach of contract been committed.

3. The Particulars of Claim states 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 does 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 was 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. (signage has been updated since 17/08/2016)

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

Fruitcake

Redact your VRN now!

You also need to remove the formatting errors that were caused by a system error on this site last year.

In other words, proof read and amend before and after you have posted.

No loss went out with the Beavis case in 2015.

What is the name of the PPC, and what happened leading up to the court claim?

What happened when you complained to the landowner/retail managers?

MichC

OMG sorry i missed that , now removed!!!!! Its a rough draft but yes thanks I will remove those errors.
So remove the no loss bit ? does it need more detail ?
sorry what is the PPC ?
All correspondance has been ignored since 2016, I moved address also probably missed alot of previous letters.
The staff at the retail park were not spoken to to be honest the general belief was that the private tickets were not enforcable..... 3 years on I get a court claim.

Redx

All acronyms are covered in the newbies faq sticky thread that you have not read

Start with a bargepole defence if other recent ones don't suit , adding the Abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy towards the end of the defence

Add no landowner authority as well , plus address the POC too

Stop rushing , name your PPC and add the date of issue of the claim form to your reply

PPC invoices can be enforceable , Google the name Barry Beavis , the PPC have 6 years to try a court claim , so remove the loss of monies seen in point 2

Umkomaas

Is this thread relating to your other thread on the forum, or have you two court cases to defend.

It's totally confusing if you're running two threads about one case, and regulars are having to duplicate their questions and their advice, particularly as there is no context in this one.

Please ask a Board Guide to merge both threads if they do actually relate to one case and let this one die.

MichC

Im sorry I didnt realise I needed to add to my previous thread my mistake

Le_Kirk

MichC wrote: »

Im sorry I didnt realise I needed to add to my previous thread my mistake

Just send a POM to a board guide (Crabman, Savvy, Sooolin) asking for your threads to be merged.

KeithP

As already asked by Redx, what is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Redx

I think it's in his previous thread and you told him the details back then

This is why the rule is , one topic , one thread only , lol

KeithP

Thanks Redx.

MichC, please ignore my question. I asked it without checking the rest of the internet to see if you had already answered it.

One incident, one thread.

tboo

Just for clarification
The other thread is here


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6035900


OP Put your defence on there


Let this one die