Newbie Defense Draft

triumphdan

Hi some advice please, I will keep it brief!

I have 2 separate County Court summons from BW legal - Premier Park LTD.

Im a tenant of the site where all the PCN's have been issued.

I have lots of letters from my landlord stating the parking rules and this is different to what Premier are accusing me of.

The site has 3 different organisation giving parking instructions (town council, district council and Premier) The road is only 80 yard and it's a dead end

There are 4 different Premier signes on the road and they all have conflicting instructions.


In one day my vehicle recived 4 tickets and never moved once.

I'm accused of parking in a NO parking area but all they have is a picture of my windscreen.

I have requestes a SAR and asked BW to suspend the case.

In the last 4 years, Premier have threatened me with Court action and then Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and then Zenith collections and now BW have taken me to Court. I have every letter right back to the initial PCN's.







IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Limited
-and-
Mr XXX XXXXXX

DEFENCE

1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the claimant’s £100.00 Parking Charge Notice.



2. Due to the sparseness in the particulars, it is unclear as to what the 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.



3. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimants’ signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding and reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within a marked bay and displaying a permit where required, giving no definition of the bays that require a permit. The signage also states no parking on the road or turning circle, again no definition given as to where the turning circle is and no double yellow lines on the road.



4. There are multiple signs stating different organisations that instruct the parking within Cottey Meadow.



5. The terms on the Claimants’ signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle.



6. This is the second case taken out against the Defendant, for more PCN's given over the same dates. The defendant believes that this is being done in an effort to extract more money in fees from them. The defendant also believes this to be a waste of the courts time.

7. Premier Park Limited are not the land owners. By way of a tenansy my agreement is with The Guinness Partnership.

8. The defendant believes to be a victim of over zealous ticketing.

9. The claimant has not provided any evidence to prove their reason for the PCN's "parking in No parking area".

---

Please feel free to tell me it's rubbis and I need to start again, my deadline is 4/10. Also do I have a good case to ask for damages and how do I justify this.

Thank you for yor time :A

Redx

I doubt you can obtain damages in a small claims court ,( these are not summons , they are moneyclaims using the online system at Northampton)

You can try for costs if you win , typically £95

That defence (no S) is very sparse , checkout the examples like by bargepole and Johnnersh in the newbies faq sticky thread near the top of the forum

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on each of your Claim Forms?

Did they come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

triumphdan

yes, Northampton! Both Issue Dates are 05 sep

KeithP

triumphdan wrote: »

yes, Northampton! Both Issue Dates are 05 sep

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th September, you have until Tuesday 24th September to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

That is today. If you haven't done the AoS already, you must do it today, otherwise the Claimant is free to seek a Default Judgment against you. You may already be too late.

To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 8th October 2019 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks 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 could 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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

Please search the forum for these keywords:

two claims abuse of process

...and use the wording already written in all the other cases with 2 claims.

Le_Kirk

Your point 7 is tenancy. You need a point about landowner authority (check out some of the defences in the NEWBIE thread post # 2.) Have they tried to claim more than £100? If so, search for Abuse of Process by beamerguy.

triumphdan

I have taken all your advice and amended accordingly.

Please cast your eyes over it, any guidance will be appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Limited
-and-
Mr XXX XXXXXX

DEFENCE

1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the claimant’s £100.00 Parking Charge Notice.
2. Due to the sparseness in the particulars, it is unclear as to what the 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.
3. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimants’ signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding and reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within a marked bay and displaying a permit where required, giving no definition of the bays that require a permit. The signage also states no parking on the road or turning circle, again no definition given as to where the turning circle is and no double yellow lines on the road.

4.The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant at or around the same date, and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant
5. There are multiple signs stating different organisations that instruct the parking within Cottey Meadow.
6. The terms on the Claimants’ signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle.
7. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Peter James Insurance with five named drivers permitted to use it.

8. Premier Park Limited are not the land owners. By way of a tenancy my agreement is with The Guinness Partnership.

9. The defendant believes to be a victim of over zealous ticketing.

10. The claimant has not provided any evidence to prove their reason for the PCN's "parking in No parking area".

11. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
- It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
- Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.
(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.
(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.
- The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases stated:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. 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 order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
- In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


:beer: Thank you :beer:

Coupon-mad

The last paras obviously need numbering. I hate having to say that every day and feel like deleting the words because no-one seems to read them telling everyone of course, to replace the darn hyphens...why do people think I put the hyphens, eeeek?!!



#8 has 'my' in it. No ''me/myself or I'' in a defence - change to 3rd person.

This is important and should be clearer, maybe like this:

5. There are multiple signs stating different [STRIKE]organisations[/STRIKE] firms that control, enforce, direct and/or offer contracts to drivers regarding [STRIKE]instruct[/STRIKE] the confusing parking rules within Cottey Meadow, including signs from the managing agents and freeholders and other parking firms. * The doctrine of contra proferentem applies where ambiguity exists in a consumer contract, and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail (Consumer Rights Act 2015).

* Is the bit I added in blue, correct?

triumphdan

I'm sure it's very frustrating "- - - - - - - - - -:rotfl:".
Can I just say a massive thank you for taking the time to read my defence and give me brilliant advice. The time you must give to this forum and people in need is commendable :T

triumphdan

Morning all, time for a bit of an update.
My defence for both cases have been accepted and both my questionnaires have been received. Still yet to have a date set.

My sister went to court yesterday on a case made up for only one parking ticket the rest of her case was the same as mine. Her case was thrown out after 20 mins because of in proper signage.

This morning I checked my online account and under CLAIM HISTORY,
it now reads
“Notification that the claim against you was discontinued was revived on 13/11/2019 at 19:07:12”

What does this mean?

And my other case does not say this!

Thank you ��