Napier & BW Legal

Redx

Post your defence below
If you have a DQ from the CCBC then get it done and email it to the CCBC , to their email address

We don't need to see the claimants DQ or their reply etc , disregard them and get your part done
You said you have read all the newbie stuff , yet it's clear you haven't digested it

KeithP

On 23rd January you told us that you received a County Court Claim.
Just seven minutes later, I asked you for the Issue Date of that Claim.
It has taken you nearly three weeks to answer that very simple question.

Have you filed a defence?
I ask because you are well out of time for filing a Defence.

Since Monday 3rd February, or 21st January if you haven't filed an Acknowledgment of Service, the Claimant has been free to seek a default Judgment against you.
Check your MCOL claim history to see if they have done that.

hehunts85

KeithP said:

On 23rd January you told us that you received a County Court Claim.
Just seven minutes later, I asked you for the Issue Date of that Claim.
It has taken you nearly three weeks to answer that very simple question.

Have you filed a defence?

Hi, 
my apologies, i thought i would get a notification when someone responded, i have since found out that is not true.
yes i filed a defence, i then received a response stating that they were going to continue with the claim, and a response to the claim. they gave an interesting response to the additional £60 they have charged me.

hehunts85

Coupon-mad said:

They're stating they didn't receive the initial response until 30th December, and because this wasn't before 24th December, they issued this on the 6th Jan.

LOL, you can mention that as a failure to follow the PAP then, because you clearly said you were seeking debt advice and they admit they received that in DECEMBER, yet still filed a claim a week later! That can be mentioned in the defence and Witness Statement. A defence example to adapt is in basher52's thread.

As you have plenty of time, wait for the SAR as long as you've done the AOS (not sooner than 5 days from the issued date of the claim, though). Ad of course don't fail to file a defence in time if the SAR never arrives!

They replied with a notice of intention to proceed. and have followed that up with a response to my defence. 
they also responded to the additional £60 charge - which i can type out if that helps? 

hehunts85

Redx said:

Post your defence below
If you have a DQ from the CCBC then get it done and email it to the CCBC , to their email address

We don't need to see the claimants DQ or their reply etc , disregard them and get your part done
You said you have read all the newbie stuff , yet it's clear you haven't digested it

Defence

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 XXXXXX, of which
the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the
material date in a marked bay allocated to Company Napier Parking
LTD at Willen Lake car park, and had a valid permit to be parked
in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXX XXXXXXXX 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked
correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition
of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are
allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 total recovery costs of
£60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which
appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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.

Castle

You have left a reg number in para 2 and a name in para 3!

hehunts85

Castle said:

You have left a reg number in para 2 and a name in para 3!

Thanks

beamerguy

What did they say about the £60 ??????   

hehunts85

beamerguy said:

What did they say about the £60 ??????   

It reads - 
"The signage in situ makes provision for our client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the FCN. The contractual costs referred to above formed part of the terms and conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the Car Park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towrards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice."
the origanal working was - "total debt recovery costs - £60.00"

hehunts85

Just curious as to what happens next really?