Gladstones & UKCPM Ltd claim Private property PCN

KeithP

You idea of a Defence just isn't suitable and you seem to be under the impression that the keeper is not liable if they were not driving. That is not necessarily true. You need to read and digest much more of the NEWBIES thread.

There are seventeen example Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, and there is a link to that thread in my earlier post.

Just pick an example that closely matches your situation and adjust it as necessary.

Coupon-mad

hsc911 wrote: »

Thanks for that, appreciate your time :beer:

Still searching the Newbie bit, found the court claim section, where do I go fro here?

Is there a template that I can use?

No.

But of course the sticky gives you example defences, yes.

Can I not just reply with "I was not the driver, I am the registered keeper" :huh:

No. Unless you want to lose.

Why not slow down and actually read what the second post of the NEWBIES thread tells you to do? It is a court claim, so spending some research time and giving it more than mere cursory 'is there a one liner template?' attention to detail is pretty important, bearing in mind over £200 rides on how you handle this scam.

hsc911

Le_Kirk wrote: »

I know we recommend short concise defences but that is a bit too short, albeit pithy!

If you have found the NEWBIE sticky, look at post # 2 of that thread and scroll down until you come to the bit that starts of "Here are some cases won or in progress" and then keep reading the 17 pre-written defences.

Thanks, found that bit now!

hsc911

Reading it all now.

I will do more research and post up again.

Thanks all

nosferatu1001

As you have a week left, stop rushing this.
You get one chance at this defence. one
Muck it up an dyou make a real mess to try to rescue. Treat this*seriously*

hsc911

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

As you have a week left, stop rushing this.
You get one chance at this defence. one
Muck it up an dyou make a real mess to try to rescue. Treat this*seriously*

Thanks, will do.

Panic has set in a little and rushing things.

Not needed just before Xmas...and just before my birthday too :bdaycake:

Speak soon :hello:

hsc911

Hi again all,

So I have been looking here for a reply template:



If your case is about YOUR OWN SPACE or parking in a residents' car park as a legit visitor, please read THIS from the parking Prankster and also consider doing a counter-claim and/or Letter before Action to the site Managing Agent:

parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/residential-ticket-only-cancelled-after.html[/url]

Here is a defence for an 'own space' residential site, by Johnersh who is legally qualified:

/forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72977032#post72977032[/url]

and one written by me but based on a template by bargepole (legally qualified), about a residential space (this one has a point about the site being secured by key fob):

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74708527#post74708527[/url]


and one I wrote in a similar style with clear headings & sections, about an ''undesignated bay'' allegation in a block of flats:

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107768&st=80&p=1311428!!!entry[/url] 1311428

Here is one of many residential cases won. This report by bargepole mentions the case transcripts that might help (find them hosted by the Parking Prankster in his CASE LAW pages on his Blog website):

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5927351[/url]




My case is for parking in an 'Authorised vehilces only' car park. No bays/lines etc.




Is this the template to use?




POPLA Ref <ref>
Civil Enforcement Parking Charge Notice no <ref>

A notice to keeper was issued on <date> and received by me, the registered keeper of <reg> for an alleged contravention of ‘Authorised Vehicles Only" at <location>. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Civil Enforcement have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
’’The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore,
paragraph 9(5) states:
’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’
The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some seven days after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’ it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that CEL have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

<link>

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

<link>

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

<link>

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

<link>

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

<link>

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

<link>

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement




Any help much appreciated!

hsc911

I may have found the answer:





In the County Court
Claim Number:
Between
xxxx (Claimant)
and
xxxx (Defendant)


Defence Statement


Preliminary Matters.

(1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.


On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question is unknown and has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. 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.
3. The code of practice for BPA registered parking companies clearly states ‘The driver is responsible for paying the parking ticket.‘

(2) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars. The term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

(3) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular:
1. The Claimant has not disclosed a time of the alleged incident.
2. The Claimant has not disclosed the alleged car park of the incident as the location has many.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of how the greatly increased outstanding amount and costs came to be from the original alleged offence.

(4) The Claimant does not own the land therefore, there is reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and have no locus standing to bring this case.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question.
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

(5) The claimants Letter Before Action did not comply with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely, unless I am to assume they will be relying on no documents.

(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 £60 to £355. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and a blatant attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. 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.

(7) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is illegible from the drivers eat due to size and often foliage blocking the sign itself in some locations after further inspection. This is as well as the sporadic and random location of said signage.
2. The BPA code of practice states: ‘There will be a sign at the entrance to the car park that
will explain in the broadest terms that the car park is private land and that it is managed by an AOS operator’. This signage does not exist in any of the car parks at the location.
3. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(8) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(9) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.




I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

hsc911

Morning all, tomorrow is D Day.

Is the above the defence that I need to use?

Thanks in advance.

hsc911

Gone with this:



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

Mr Inno Cent (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)” 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!

3. 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.

4. Further and in the alternative, 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract!

5. In preparing this defence and examining the signage it appears the driver would have to rely upon a randomly placed sign, which stated “AUTHORISED VEHICLES ONLY” clearly offering no contract and no chargeable terms. As well as all the above, the signage of the site is un-lit and this makes it impossible to read at night to someone in a moving vehicle. If there was another sign with other terms, it was not prominent (not seen at all) and there was no reason to expect a circumspect driver to seek out more signs. And no lawful reason to conclude that the parking decision and conduct of the driver meant that a charge had been accepted or agreed. I amended the above

6. The Claimant’s entrance signage is not at driver eye level with details and terms in exceptionally small print. The positioning, font size and height mean that the sign is hard to read even if a visitor knows where to find it. I amended the above

7. The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located on the site is unlit and therefore impossible to see at night by a driver in a passing vehicle.
b. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 5), which states the signage ought to “have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”; Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking on the ‘site’, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant

8. The site does NOT have the appearance of a car park, and thus, an average circumspect driver would only expect to seek out parking terms & regulations if there were yellow lines, or bays, marked at the kerb. There are no such markings at this location, and nothing to suggest that one road is 'private land'. The’site’ is NOT XXXXXX Street where the alleged offence is said to have taken place. The signage fails to meet Lord Denning's well known ‘Red Hand Rule’, with no appropriate prominence given to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce a 'concealed pitfall or trap', as was defined in ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In the instant case, the penalty sum is not prominent, and represents neither a necessary deterrent nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.I amended the above

9. It should be obvious from the above that signage at this location is entirely inadequate, misleading and incapable of creating a contract with the Defendant. The Claimant cannot place a sign out of sight and expect the driver to see a sign which has been placed there unlit or to spot further signs, which have been placed at an inadequate height and in an inadequate lighting.

10. 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.

11. 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, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. The Claimant states that the offence took place at XXXXXX Street. XXXXXX Street is a public road and NOT the location where the Claimant’s pictures suggest an offence took place. I amended the above

13. In summary, it is the Defendant's 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.



YOUR NAME



signature






01 April 2020




:j