Claim form recieved draft defense review appreciated

Coupon-mad

Good defence, and you can save the abuse of process an Consumer Rights Act stuff till WS stage.

Get rid of the greengrocer's apostrophe here:

at it's entrance.

And remove #3 as it says nothing.

Maybe replace it with this, if you are saying that this PPC are not here any more:

The on-site landholder company for whom the prohibitive signage was displayed was dissolved last year, after the PCN was issued but well before this claim was filed. This appears to have all the hallmarks of a 'revenge claim' with this Claimant scraping the barrel of their database to squeeze the most they can from a site they no longer operate. This and the unfair/unclear consumer notices and terms, sets this case apart and fully distinguishes it from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, not least due to the absence of any 'legitimate interest' which might elevate the commercial justification above merely seeking pecuniary damages.

Also how about a para about the BPA or IPC Grace periods rule? Which PPC?

Anton1933

Coupon Mad

I will remove #3 - thank you.

I did not mean the PPC ( which is UKCPM) was dissolved, rather I meant that the client company for whom the PPC was providing parking services was dissolved. I note however that your suggested replacement text seems to remain completely applicable and I propose to use it as I think it is compelling.

I note that the particular signage ref my case is no longer on the relevant car parking location whereas on the right hand side of the car park area the PPC still has about 16 such warning signs but where each one ( same signage ) is about 3 foot directly in front of each individual parking bay and directly facing the driver. In contrast the warning signage I was meant to clearly see ( sic) was about 31 feet away and partially blocked by another car in the bay directly next to it along with other nearby retail type, brightly coloured distracting signage and all at right angles to the two rows of 4 cars bays where I was inadvertently parked 4 spaces away !)

I appreciate poor signage cases need convincing to judges but I am convinced my case is strong and I am determined to stand my ground ..Grr

Coupon-mad

Sounds strong to me. Signage is actually a very common winning point in court!

Anton1933

I logged onto MCOL today and noticed that under Response History at the bottom of the Claim page the system was showing a DEFENCE line immediately under the AOS line. I didn't consciously submit a defence though I had looked at what was in that section and I was aware also of the warnings in newbies section ( I think) about not putting anything there, even a full stop.

I then deleted the (seemingly empty) defence and the system now only shows the AOS line. I'm aware that the MCOL system is creaky . So does anyone know if I am safely back to a December 12 date deadline or is the mere existence of a blank but now deleted form ( baffled as to what I might have done here ) enough to tip me back to 5 plus 14 days .

I am very comfortable with 14 days ( defence is almost done thanks to help on this form) but I want to leave this as long as I really have

KeithP

Perhaps you should ring the CCBC on Monday and find out.

There's a phone number on your Claim Form.

Anton1933

KeithP
Thanks, will do asap on Monday

I did try calling today but I lost the will to live when time to wait was quoted, I've since sent an email query and they auto replied stating a turnaround time of 10 day ! That left me feeling twitchy

Redx

you wont find anyone on here that works for the CCBC and is prepared to go on record about it , only they know the answer , even if it takes 3 days to answer your phone call about it (overworked civil service staff)

Coupon-mad

This was all covered last week on another thread, no need to phone the CCBC:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76467852#Comment_76467852

Anton1933

I now have what I hope will be my final defence having absorbed ( without cocking up hopefully)
advise given and other threads here, I will expand on any relevant cases at W.S stage as well as image exhibits. I remain optimistic that I can resolve this on the signage issue( sic) but regardless , a few hours waiting at court will not be overly burdensome.

--snip--

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 AAN AAA (the ‘vehicle’) which the Defendant was driving, was parked on the material date and time in an unmarked bay within a car parking area in NNNNN for about ten minutes to collect a pre paid item from a retail store. To do this he had entered the car parking area through the sole entrance which has no warning signage. The defendant agrees only that he was the driver.

3. Due to the brevity of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass.

4. It is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The claimant in their PCN produced a single image of this alleged parking transgression for the defendant. The defendant understands that private car parking companies should allow a minimum of 10 minutes ‘grace’ period. The claimant has produced no evidence of how long the defendant was parked in apparent transgression of the alleged PCN. (ref. IPC and BPA Code of practices).

6. The terms on the Claimants prohibitive signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. The defendant did not observe any signage until he revisited the parking area a few months later subsequent to receiving the PCN. At the time of the alleged transgression the sole signage on the left was about 31 feet away to the left from the defendants driving seat, partially obscured by an adjacent car immediately next to this signage and with other multi coloured, visually distracting signage near by. This prohibitive signage was approximately at right angles to the direction walked by the defendant on leaving his vehicle as he approached a retail shop to collect a pre paid item.

7. Identical signage also seen subsequently on the right hand side of the car park by contrast was positioned immediately in front of each individual parking bay such that it would be about 3 foot directly in front of each putative drivers windscreen.

8. The defendant had approached the parking bay on the left by driving directly forward in a straight line from the left side of the open gated entrance. He drove into the pertinent car parking area with appropriate due diligence for the driver of a moving vehicle with regards to other road users and pedestrian.

9. The signage was in such a position that even if clearly visible, anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10. The claimants warning signage is an absolute prohibition against any person parking in a parking bay other than an authorised vehicle with a valid permit on display in the windscreen at all times. The defendant asserts that the signage is effectively saying you must not trespass here and that the claimant is dressing up in the form of a contract, the right to charge the defendant a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming that the claimant genuinely has any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass. The defendant asserts that the payment being demanded is an unlawful penalty and not a proper consideration and that case law supporting this assertion seems clear.

11. The on-site landholder company for whom the prohibitive signage was displayed was dissolved last year, after the PCN was issued but well before this claim was filed. This appears to have all the hallmarks of a 'revenge claim' with this Claimant scraping the barrel of their database to squeeze the most they can from a site they no longer operate. This and the unfair/unclear consumer notices and terms, sets this case apart and fully distinguishes it from the case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, not least due to the absence of any 'legitimate interest' which might elevate the commercial justification above merely seeking pecuniary damages.

12. 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. The defendant also notes, in this context, that it is believed that the client company for whom the claimant may have been acting was dissolved on the 8th of May 2018.

13. 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, allegedly for contractual costs for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. As per claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor (Southampton Court, 10th June 2019) the substantial additional charge is an abuse of process.

14. The claimants solicitors have also twice, 11 months apart as if the second were ab initio, issued letter before claim proceedings requiring identical responses from the defendant. The defendant asserts that this is a clear abuse of the court pre action protocols intended to intimidate him.

15. In summary, it is the defendants 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
Date