Court claim form - Horizon Parking

Coupon-mad

I thought paragraph 2 was just to state the facts of the claim against me?

The opposite! Why would you waste words setting out their claim?!

This is your defence and you need to expand #2 like is shown here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6064593/uk-car-park-management-gladstones-county-court-business-centre-defence

daniellog

I've added some details about the car park. I'm going to be away next week so I have to submit it this week. Is this okay?

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, 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. The car park in the claim is a free retail car park and has no pay and display. There is also no staff from the claimant at the car park to advise drivers of any restrictions.

Coupon-mad

You are on dodgy ground with any overstay at a retail park (Beavis case kills it, unless the signs are bad). So you need:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, 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. The car park in the claim is a free retail car park [STRIKE]and has no pay and display. There is also no staff from the claimant at the car park to advise drivers of any restrictions.[/STRIKE] but there the possible similarity with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') ends. There was inadequate notice of any parking charge or restrictive terms, and any sparse signs were behind foliage and/or any 'parking terms' were buried in small print and not seen.

2.1. On the pertinent facts - including but not limited to the inadequate signage at this location - the Beavis case is distinguished and the binding case which in fact applies and has similarities with these facts is the Court of appeal case of Vine v Waltham Forest, where the signage was inadequate (applying the well known 'red hand rule') and Miss Vine did not see them and could not be bound by them.

2.1.1. Roch LJ held at para. 19 of the judgment:
''Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the plaintiff's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the plaintiff's distressed state, the reason why the plaintiff parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the plaintiff's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the plaintiff was other than a truthful witness.''

2.1.2. At paragraph 20 he went on to add: ''The Recorder held, correctly, that the plaintiff by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, the recorder jumped to the conclusion that the plaintiff had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the recorder fell into error, in my judgment. Consequently I am of the view that the recorder's decision on the basic issue in this case must be reversed.''

daniellog

I've followed the instructions on #7 and emailed the defence. I haven't done anything else through the MCOL website since the AOS, is that right?

KeithP

daniellog wrote: »

I haven't done anything else through the MCOL website since the AOS, is that right?

That's right - except item 6 on the list in post #7 above.

daniellog

Thanks for all your help so far, it's really appreciated!

daniellog

I have received the questionnaire from the courts and filled it out after reading this post https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

Do I have to send the claimant a copy? I would prefer not to as I have had to put my personal contact information on the questionnaire and it only says to send a copy the court?

KeithP

daniellog wrote: »

Do I have to send the claimant a copy? I would prefer not to as I have had to put my personal contact information on the questionnaire and it only says to send a copy the court?

Are you sure?
Doesn't the accompanying paperwork tell you to send a copy to the Claimant?

Return the completed DQ to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you sent your Defence. Refresh your memory on that by re-reading post #7 above.

Send a copy to the Claimant - address on your Claim Form.

daniellog

The actual questionnaire doesn't mention it at all,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J4lXnnWC6xwMTj6tlr0EVH_2Fl1VfSjS/view?usp=sharing

On the letter from the court it does,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JCJAkUBHKmeruaHg6PdGIlfwAi-N5mhr/view?usp=sharing

Although this seems like a breach of privacy that I have to give my contact information to the claimant?

KeithP

daniellog wrote: »

The actual questionnaire doesn't mention it at all,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J4lXnnWC6xwMTj6tlr0EVH_2Fl1VfSjS/view?usp=sharing

On the letter from the court it does,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JCJAkUBHKmeruaHg6PdGIlfwAi-N5mhr/view?usp=sharing

Although this seems like a breach of privacy that I have to give my contact information to the claimant?

Yes, I did say...

Doesn't the accompanying paperwork tell you to send a copy to the Claimant?