Court claim form - Horizon Parking

Redx

SAR to horizon DPO by email, not the solicitors

Le_Kirk

daniellog wrote: »

I took some pictures of the signs yesterday and one of them under a tree and was very dirty that you could hardly read it, also the tree was in the way of it a bit. Would this be a good argument for my defence?

I'm going to submit the AoS tomorrow to buy some time.

Pictures, along with any other evidence are submitted at Witness Statement stage, after defence and after DQ. See NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and Bargepole's post, What Happens and When.

KeithP

daniellog wrote: »

I'm going to submit the AoS tomorrow to buy some time.

As suggested in post #7, leave it another day or two if you can.

daniellog

I've done the AOS this morning. I'm going to draft up a defence this week, mostly against the signage being dirty and hard to read and the random £70 charge. I just need to look at the laws on signage and reference them in my defence. Thanks for all your help so far!

Le_Kirk

If you go to the NEWBIE sticky post # 2, you will find 17 pre-written defences, most of them include defences against dirty/poor signs. Then check out Witness Statements in the same place and you will find that posters have used the CoP of either BPA or IPC (depending upon which club the PPC belongs to) for signage.

daniellog

I've managed to draft up a defence today. I've tried to add in points that they have broken in the AOS code of conduct that they are meant to be bound by. Please let me know what to change, add in or remove.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXX

BETWEEN:

HORIZON PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (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 is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant to be parked on the material date at a car park managed by the claimant.

3. 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. 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. The signage is not lit or maintained in any way so most signs are unreadable due to vandalism and dirt. Some of the signs are also obstructed by overgrown trees and shrubbery that have not been maintained and therefore they are unreadable.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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 and therefore not complying with 18.3 that they are “are easy to see, read and understand” AOS code of conduct, as well as 18.4 (“following any applicable government signage regulations”), 18.6 (“you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information”) and 18.10 (“there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle”). The colour scheme and font size of the signage makes it deliberately hard to read and possibly impossible if the person is colour blind or has any sight loss. This again breaks 18.10 of the AOS code of conduct as disabled motorists could not potentially read the signs. 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 £85. The claim includes an additional £70, 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

Le_Kirk

Do you really mean the AOS code of conduct? Probably BPA or IPC Code of Practice.

daniellog

Its BPA, but the document is called "AOS Code of Conduct".

Le_Kirk

Yes, it is but it is usually referred to as a Code of Practice and, if you search for it using Auntie Google it comes up as CoP. I am sure judges will know what is meant whichever term you use.

daniellog

No worries, I'll change it to the code of practice. Anything else I should change?