We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Draft defence
Bendyboo
Posts: 9 Forumite
Many thanks to coupon-mad etc for all the posts about PCNs. If you have time, here is my draft defence for your comment.
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________
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 XXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park shared between XXX, and YYY.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper 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 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 set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely stated 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 were also displayed in a font which was too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and was in such a position that anyone attempting to read the small 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.
7. In addition, the car park in question had recently been divided. The area in front of the XXX had been allocated to YYY and was under the control of the Claimant. The area in front of YYY was for free parking when collecting from XXX. Given this lack of common sense regarding where the clients of each establishment should park, more attention should have been given to making the signage, and parking bays, for each clear. Subsequently, clearer signage, and marking of the bays was undertaken, but this was not in evidence on 09/05/2014.
8. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
[FONT="]9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
[/FONT]
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________
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 XXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park shared between XXX, and YYY.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper 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 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 set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely stated 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 were also displayed in a font which was too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and was in such a position that anyone attempting to read the small 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.
7. In addition, the car park in question had recently been divided. The area in front of the XXX had been allocated to YYY and was under the control of the Claimant. The area in front of YYY was for free parking when collecting from XXX. Given this lack of common sense regarding where the clients of each establishment should park, more attention should have been given to making the signage, and parking bays, for each clear. Subsequently, clearer signage, and marking of the bays was undertaken, but this was not in evidence on 09/05/2014.
8. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
[FONT="]9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
[/FONT]
0
Comments
-
Good first post, nice research.
I'd move #7 up to be part of the facts in #2.
Then either change #10 to the much longer post #14 in beamerguy's ABUSE OF PROCESS thread or leave it as it is and make a copy of post #14 wording from that thread, and include it later in your WS to shoot down the added £60 and solicitor's fee of £50, both of which are made up.
Which parking firm? You are safe to say and we can give more bespoke help later.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking CompaniesYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Do you have a County Court Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?0 -
You have stated in para 3:-
"3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper 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."
Assuming that the PoC say rk and/or driver the para is usually written as below otherwise there is no menu choice:-
The Particulars of Claim state 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.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Good first post, nice research.
I'd move #7 up to be part of the facts in #2.
Then either change #10 to the much longer post #14 in beamerguy's ABUSE OF PROCESS thread or leave it as it is and make a copy of post #14 wording from that thread, and include it later in your WS to shoot down the added £60 and solicitor's fee of £50, both of which are made up.
Which parking firm? You are safe to say and we can give more bespoke help later.
Thanks. I'll make the changes you suggest.
It is with Premier Park0 -
You don't need STATEMENT.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[strike]d[/strike] 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.0
-
Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies
On my list of things to do!0 -
Do you have a County Court Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Yes, we have a claim form from Northampton. Issue Date 06/09/19. We have gone online and got the extra time. Defence due in some time next week.0 -
1505grandad wrote: »You have stated in para 3:-
"3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper 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."
Assuming that the PoC say rk and/or driver the para is usually written as below otherwise there is no menu choice:-
The Particulars of Claim state 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.
Will make the change. Thank you very much for your input.0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 6th September, and having done the Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 9th October 2019 to file your Defence.Yes, we have a claim form from Northampton. Issue Date 06/09/19. We have gone online and got the extra time. Defence due in some time next week.
That's nearly two weeks away. A little longer than you thought. 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards