county court claim - civil enforcement

Coupon-mad

Errrm:

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, when parking on the material date in a marked bay at xxxxx car park.

Yet you said to us:

The bays are barely visible, meaning it cannot be reasonably assumed that it is in fact a car park - it simply appears as an unused piece of land, which has been the case for some years beforehand (another reason she didn't notice it was now a car park)

You need to change #2 to clearly stated that she was the driver, familiar with this piece of land, and the signs and any purported bay lines and/or entrance warning signs were unlit, non prominent and wholly inadequate.

Not that she was 'in a marked bay' ...yes, I know you copied it, but don't!

stansmum

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Errrm:

Yet you said to us:
You need to change #2 to clearly stated that she was the driver, familiar with this piece of land, and the signs and any purported bay lines and/or entrance warning signs were unlit, non prominent and wholly inadequate.

Not that she was 'in a marked bay' ...yes, I now you copied it, but don't!

Thanks - silly mistake from us. I have reworked this a bit and added in more clarity further down in the relevant section. Is this ok?

• The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
  
• The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, when parking on the material date at [will just insert the address here and no reference to car park or marked bay].
  
• 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 do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
  
• 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.
  
• 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.
  
  
  1. 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.
     
  2. Furthermore, no street lighting covers the ‘car park’ or parking signs and no additional lighting has been installed to aid drivers in seeing these signs, either by the entrance or within the ‘car park’, or any lines to indicate the marking of parking bays on the ground. The signage is non-prominent, poorly lit, and wholly inadequate. The Defendant was the driver on the material date on which the Claimant alleges the breach of contract. The Defendant is familiar with the address and the land on which the Claimant now operates, having used this land to park on numerous occasions prior to the date of the alleged breach of contract. On no occasion prior to the material date in question has the Defendant been issued with any ‘Parking Charge Notice’ or invoice from the Claimant, or anyone else. If the signage setting out the terms of contract was prominent, clearly lit, and adequate, the Defendant would have noticed this, given their familiarity with the land in question.

Coupon-mad

Very good, now it says something relevant to the Judge!

stansmum

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Very good, now it says something relevant to the Judge!

Thanks for your help. We filed the defence last week. We will look through the questionnaire witness statement advice on the threads now.

stansmum

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Very good, now it says something relevant to the Judge!

Hi there. We’ve now returned the DQ with the recommended answers on the newbies thread.

One question. We sent the SAR the their data protection officer over a month ago and have chased and still no reply. Can this be used in our defence?

Thanks

KeithP

stansmum wrote: »

One question. We sent the SAR the their data protection officer over a month ago and have chased and still no reply. Can this be used in our defence?

Give the PPC seven days to comply then report their failing to the Information Commissioner's Office.

stansmum

KeithP wrote: »

Give the PPC seven days to comply then report their failing to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Thanks. Do you think it actually helps our witness statement/case if they have failed to comply with data sharing laws? They’ve effectively given no proof of the parking offence, however, we’ve already acknowledged that we were there in our filed defence.

KeithP

stansmum wrote: »

Thanks. Do you think it actually helps our witness statement/case if they have failed to comply with data sharing laws?

No .

stansmum

Hi there. We have now received the hearing date for this case. Can we take the 14 day submission deadline for statements to mean calendar days rather than working days? It does not say this in the letter so we have taken this to mean calendar says. This means we need to submit our witness statement by 1 may if so so I intend to post this in the next couple of days and would hugely appreciate help and support. This is a CEL claim, so we will read the relevant threads. I have also noted the advice you have given on other threads about rejecting video conference hearings or paper based ones. My mother (the defendant) is a key worker, so I think she will have good grounds to get the case postponed under those circumstances - no letter received on this yet however. 

KeithP

It says fourteen days.

If it doesn't qualify those days in any way, then you shouldn't either.