UK carpark managment (a defence draft)

mahrez1980

Start with the concise defence by member bargepole , add no landowner authority , address the POC as seen in your reply above , add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy[/QUOTE]


with regard to bargepole defendant template, are you referring to point 3.4.8 ?

mahrez1980

Redx wrote: »

do not give them your phone number or copies of your passport or driving licence

its ok to use the following as proof of I D for a SAR

a copy of your V5C (log book) , and a copy of the claim form the CCBC sent to you

I would include both

a redacted recent utility bill is also ok , as long as it shows your name , address and a recent date


the above will not affect your case as defendant

Redx wrote: »

Looks more like a witness statement to me

The defence should address the POC listed on the claim form , plus the legal reasons for defending the court claim and query and address the landowner authority aspect and any spurious costs added

The time for the story is in a witness statement in several months time

Save the above as a part of the WS but changing defendant to I

And UKCPM are not in the BPA AOS nor do they follow the BPA Cop , which coupon mad posted earlier

Start with the concise defence by member bargepole , add no landowner authority , address the POC as seen in your reply above , add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy

please don't hate me.(this is to the best of my knowledge)
I have modified the defence taking on board the points mentioned above (I hope I did).
was wondering what you guys think?any advice please?





DEFENCE
____________
The Defendant in this matter will say as follows:
1. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
2. The Defendant was never made aware of any new parking restrictions by the customer that time - despite visiting often. The called private parking by the claimant is totally isolated/far away from any buildings such as houses/flats.
3. The Signage is located at a distance in a pale, unlit, creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract, the detailed contractual terms are impossible to read from the road, especially from my parking position and any approach to my parking position.
4. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100
to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
5. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
6. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.
7.The Court is therefore invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name xxxxxxxxx
Signature xxxxxxxxx
Date xxxxxxx

Redx

Now add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy below point 5 , renumber all paragraphs

That is more like a defence , but not finished yet

Le_Kirk

Redx wrote: »

Start with the concise defence by member bargepole , add no landowner authority , address the POC as seen in your reply above , add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy

mahrez1980 wrote: »

with regard to bargepole defendant template, are you referring to point 3.4.8 ?

Redx wrote: »

Now add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy below point 5 , renumber all paragraphs

That is more like a defence , but not finished yet

Did you actually go and find the NEWBIE sticky with the 17 pre-written defences? You are still missing landowner authority.

2. The Defendant was never made aware of any new parking restrictions by the customer that time - despite visiting often. The called private parking by the claimant is totally isolated/far away from any buildings such as houses/flats.

What do you mean by customer?Did you mean claimant?

The called private parking

Did you mean: -

The so called private parking

3. The Signage is located at a distance in a pale, unlit, creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract, the detailed contractual terms are impossible to read from the road, especially from my parking position and any approach to my parking position.

What did you mean by this? What is wrong with using the standard signage point in the pre-written defences and then you can add "unlit" to it.

mahrez1980

Redx wrote: »

Now add the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy below point 5 , renumber all paragraphs

That is more like a defence , but not finished yet

was wondering if this is enough as an abuse of process from coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy below point ?

mahrez1980

mahrez1980 wrote: »

was wondering if this is enough as an abuse of process from coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy below point ?

I believe the deadline on submitting this defence is 4pm Monday?
any help is much appreciated.
I am reading and reading about 4 hours a day to get it sorted but I seem to be holding at same points, and help please?Not sure about point 5?


DEFENCE
____________
The Defendant in this matter will say as follows:
1. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
2. The Defendant was never made aware of any new parking restrictions by the customer that time - despite visiting often. The called private parking by the claimant is totally isolated/far away from any buildings such as houses/flats.
3. The Signage is located at a distance in a pale, unlit, creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract, the detailed contractual terms are impossible to read from the road, especially from my parking position and any approach to my parking position.
4.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.
5.Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. 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) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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...''
6. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100
to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
7. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
8. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.
9.The Court is therefore invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name xxxxxxxxx
Signature xxxxxxxxx
Date xxxxxxx

Redx

That defence gives away who was driving in 2 and 3

Add no landowner authority to it

Read their POC and rebut it

Add judges Giddins and Jones into point 5

mahrez1980

Thank you for you time Redx ��☺️
Isn’t it Gud idea to mention on the defiance that the defendant is a taxi driver?

Add no land owner authority to ?

Where can giddings and Jones be found plz ?

Coupon-mad

In the post by me you mentioned here! You were meant to copy it ALL, including the quotes from Beavis:

was wondering if this is enough as an abuse of process from coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy

And no landowner authority is in every example defence except one really short one by bargepole that missed it out. So look at the other examples to find it.

I would remove this:

1. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

And instead base your first point of defence on dropping a customer as the D is a taxi driver, plus breach of the Trade body grace periods, plus poor signage.

Search the forum for defence grace periods proprietary to find one that has it all.

mahrez1980

Coupon-mad wrote: »

In the post by me you mentioned here! You were meant to copy it ALL, including the quotes from Beavis:


And no landowner authority is in every example defence except one really short one by bargepole that missed it out. So look at the other examples to find it.

I would remove this:
And instead base your first point of defence on dropping a customer as the D is a taxi driver, plus breach of the Trade body grace periods, plus poor signage.

Search the forum for defence grace periods proprietary to find one that has it all.

can anyone please help me on where to find the defence grace periods proprietary ?
I typed it on the mse web but search came with not found.
I might be on the wrong search engine?
thanks