PPS/Country Court - Claim Form

gingerbeardman

Thanks!

Correct, Defendant the keeper, but wasn't driving at the time.

> The person who is named as the Defendant on the Claim Form is the person who must defend the claim.

Thanks. It's just that because I was driving I am tasked with doing this paperwork.

Yes, time is tight, I will post defence here soon and file first thing tomorrow.

beamerguy wrote: »

With a letter saying "NOTICE OF PENDING COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT"
you should report them to the SRA who are currently invesigating the workings of BWLegal
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

Done!

gingerbeardman

FWIW

Car park in question was: Coronation Park, Helston, Cornwall (sometimes called Cattle Market)

Contravention reason has been lost to time (but along the lines of no ticket displayed)

And date of contravention was: 3rd August 2018

gingerbeardman

The two defences that apply for this are:
1. bargepole's "unclear signs" defence.
2. coupon-mad's "abuse of process" defence.

Is this OK?
Should I do one or the other?
bargepole also mentions the extra £60 so could just use that succinct defence?

For now, I have combined the two, adding point 2 about the Keeper not being the Driver at the time:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
[KEEPER OF VEHICLE] (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 was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the first of two sections of the car park at Coronation Park, Helston, Cornwall, and as far as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident was concerned had a valid permit to be parked in that section of the car park purchased using the RingGo app, despite the Claimant maintaining that the contravention is “no trace of payment”.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. it is also confusing that the car park is split into two sections each with their own signage.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

1505grandad

It is DEFENCE (no Statement)

ALL paras to be sequentially numbered.

I think your para 9 is repeated in one of the yet to be numbered paras

As is Para 10

Le_Kirk

The Abuse of Process paragraphs should follow on immediately after your para 9 as that it what it refers to. As 1505grandad says, number ALL paragraphs, then spell check, grammar check and duplication check.

gingerbeardman

I've decided to go with only the first 10 points.

I see that there is a method of filing the Defence in Money Claim Online. Should this not be used?

Is the preferred method by email?

gingerbeardman

Defence filed by email as directed in [url=https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76380098#Comment_76380098[/url]

Thanks for all the help so far!

Le_Kirk

gingerbeardman wrote: »

I've decided to go with only the first 10 points.

I see that there is a method of filing the Defence in Money Claim Online. Should this not be used?

Is the preferred method by email?

gingerbeardman wrote: »

Defence filed by email as directed in #2

Thanks for all the help so far!

Fortunately you have hit upon the correct way to submit your defence.

gingerbeardman

Defence receipt acknowledged via post from HMC&TS

Are BW Legal PPS likely to continue past this point?

Coupon-mad

Yes and you'll know that from reading other BW Legal PPS threads. Do so now!