ukppo bwlegal - defence review help

Le_Kirk

Your questions: -
1.1 You are not mistaken, you just use the nearest template that suits your circumstances and adapt accordingly. If you don't have a key fob controlled parking area, just remove the bits about fob controlled. The templates are exactly that - templates for posters to build on and not just copy & paste without making sure they fit the issue.
2. Correct
2.1 Not an issue, everybody uses that. However if it concerns you, just make sure you refer to Abuse of Process and the extra £60 in your defence and you can provide the rest of the thread in your witness statement.
3. ALL paragraphs require a number so that when/if you are in court and you want to refer to it, you can say to the judge, "I refer to paragraph 9" instead of "I refer to the third hyphen after paragraph 9" The comment (post # 14 of beamerguy's thread) was added by Coupon-mad and she makes the point that you should add numbers and the reason she didn't add numbers was because they would/might be different in different defences.

alpha0123

Hi Coupon-mad,


thank you for your time and effort on these forums.


I have a few questions about your previous suggestion(s) in another thread as follows: [I dont think I can post links being a new member on the forum, so do apologies for the lengthy post]
1. Johnersh’s post linked in post#2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky under “defence for an 'own space' residential site, by Johnersh who is legally qualified” has paragraphs #1 and #2 as follows


“Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.”


In the thread posted by Norriscat titled “Going to court - can you help with a defence please”, on post#6 you asked the entire paragraphs mentioned above (except for the last sentence in the para#2 which wasn’t in Norriscat’s defence) to be completely removed.
1.1. Is this due to the fact Norriscat had already received the particulars from the PPC?
1.2. Or in general, this should be removed by others using the template residential site defence by Johnersh?


Many thanks,
alpha0123

alpha0123

Hi Le_Kirk,


Many thanks for reading through my defence and your patience.

“
6. The Defendant carried out research after having received the PCN from the Claimant about the parking signs and the Claimant is put to strict proof.
”
Proof of what? That sentence just stops!

I have removed this from para #6 and added this as para#10.1 "The Defendant carried out research after having received the PCN from the Claimant about the parking signs."

As said by others it is quite long and some of that defence would be better placed in the Witness Statement and/or evidence. Don't have links in defences, courts will not follow them; just put the title to which it refers (ParkingEye v Beavis)

Ok, i am doing another version by trimming things i think might be ok to be removed. shall post it once done.
Yes, i have removed the link and added the ParkingEye v Beavis as the reference.

I cannot find any reference to landowner authority.

I thought para#11 was enough, now after your comment i have amended it to

11. It is denied that the Claimant is the lawful occupier of the land. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they were in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.
11.1. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

All paragraphs require a number.

ok, noted. As I have mentioned above removed the link and added Beavis reference and the quoted paras from Beavis are sub-paras of 22.

alpha0123

*. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

This is a para from the "Abuse of Process" thread by beamerguy / Coupon-mad's post#14.

I just checked and DRP do not have this on their website.
So should i remove this? (in my defence is para#19)

beamerguy

alpha0123 wrote: »

This is a para from the "Abuse of Process" thread by beamerguy / Coupon-mad's post#14.

I just checked and DRP do not have this on their website.
So should i remove this? (in my defence is para#19)

They took it down recently to hide their tracks. We were ahead of them and here is a screenshot of the missing page
(thanks to Umkomaas)

https://i.postimg.cc/mDjy063b/B7-FB3-C05-8-E94-431-D-8090-7-F089-CF3463-B.png

All ready to print and show the judge

alpha0123

hi,

5. The Defendants [...] No other car is entitled to park in the space as the space is owned (Deeded) by the Defendant’s Landlord.

i have looked at the title deed and it is leasehold land:(. So should i reword the above to avoid saying owned?

such as "No other vehicle is entitled to park in the parking space as is demised (deeded) to the Defendant's Landlord"?

alpha0123

hi beamerguy,


thank you for pointing that :Tand thanks to umkomass for capturing it before it vanished:beer:.


I have a copy now and would mention it in my witness statement. So saying this was their usual operating method would be sufficient? or do i need to quote when this screenshot was captured as well?

beamerguy

alpha0123 wrote: »

hi beamerguy,


thank you for pointing that :Tand thanks to umkomass for capturing it before it vanished:beer:.


I have a copy now and would mention it in my witness statement. So saying this was their usual operating method would be sufficient? or do i need to quote when this screenshot was captured as well?

Jolly good. Now, DRP of course will not be in court but if the legal rep denies the "no win no fee", and you show the judge, could be that the judge may find him guilty of lying and that is serious

Coupon-mad

alpha0123 wrote: »

i have looked at the title deed and it is leasehold land:(. So should i reword the above to avoid saying owned?

such as "No other vehicle is entitled to park in the parking space as is demised (deeded) to the Defendant's Landlord"?

Leasehold title is property ownership.

In the thread posted by Norriscat titled “Going to court - can you help with a defence please”, on post#6 you asked the entire paragraphs mentioned above (except for the last sentence in the para#2 which wasn’t in Norriscat’s defence) to be completely removed.

I told him to remove it because none of it was true in his case.

Exactly the same as the other Wembley Park estate cases on here then.

You only have to search UKPPO to find at least one similar one right now, and I don't mean the thread by parkingfella who gave you a link to his, earlier.

alpha0123

Coupon-mad,


Much appreciated. Thank you for your time clarifying my silly questions!!