Varley Park University of Brighton - County Court Claim

basher52

Thank you and yes I will request the case to be heard in Brighton.

Varley Park halls of residence - Varley Park, University of Brighton, Coldean Lane, Brighton, BN1 9GR

For my defense statement, do I go through the various threads and pick out what I feel is relevant. Am I allowed to post for comments?

Thank you ( again )

waamo

basher52 wrote: »

Thank you and yes I will request the case to be heard in Brighton.

Varley Park halls of residence - Varley Park, University of Brighton, Coldean Lane, Brighton, BN1 9GR

For my defense statement, do I go through the various threads and pick out what I feel is relevant. Am I allowed to post for comments?

Thank you ( again )

Please do. The more people that critique it the better.

Le_Kirk

basher52 wrote: »

For my [strike]defense[/strike] defence statement, do I go through the various threads and pick out what I feel is relevant. Am I allowed to post for comments?

Go to the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and scroll down until you see: -

Here are some defences ............

Keep reading and you will find links to 17 pre-written defences, one of which you can adapt to suit your circumstances. You can then, with that knowledge, search for specific words and read some winning defences.

Coupon-mad

You can't just cherry pick a court unless it is so that a witness (son?) can appear?

basher52

Good point, but value your help if available.

basher52

Maybe getting stressed but cannot find examples that I could use in my defence. Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you

basher52

Dear Forum,

Looking through the threads getting slightly stressed as I cannot find examples of defence paragraphs that are relevant to my case. would anyone be able to help direct me

Thank you

KeithP

basher52 wrote: »

Dear Forum,

Looking through the threads getting slightly stressed as I cannot find examples of defence paragraphs that are relevant to my case. would anyone be able to help direct me

Thank you

I've not re-read your thread, but has anyone mentioned that there are seventeen example Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

There's a link to the NEWBIES thread in one of my earlier posts.

Redx

Start with the concise defence by bargepole

Add no landowner authority to it

If you are the registered keeper but not the driver , say so
If there are spurious charges added , then add on abuse of process

Read the POC and rebut it in the defence

Check for POFA and CRA laws failures and add anything of merit

That's a basic draft of legal terms for the defence , because the defence is about legal points , not your case per se

As RK the PPC has to prove in law that you have legal liability , if they fail , your case is irrelevant

basher52

Dear all,

From the information provided on the various threads, I have prepared my draft defence below. I do need some help with number 11 though. The Court claim states;

Thank you all very much
1“ The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (s) issued to vehicle XXXX at Varley Park (UOB)Bri, Varley Park (UOB)Bri, Varley Park (UOB)Bri, Varley Park (UOB)Bri. 2 The PCN details are 15/10/18 OPSxxxxxx, 23/10/18, OPSxxxxxx 5/12/18, OPSxxxxxx,06/12/18, OPSxxxxxx. 3 The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN(s) 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages. AND THE CLAIMENT Claims
1 £560 being the total cost of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.12 until judgement or sooner payment. 3 Costs and court fees.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ONE PARKING SOLUTION LTD (Claimant)

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Varley Park (UOB), Brighton.

4. It is denied that:
4.1. A contract was formed
4.2. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
4.3. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site or that the parking areas were clearly delineated or the signs adequately lit.
4.4. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
4.5.The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

5. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

6. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
6.1. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

7. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant, was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle X. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 or where visitors should park.

10. 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. The signage was also not lit and as the alleged parking event took place on a winters evening all terms were illegible, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

11. The Claimant’s representatives, DCB Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £606.70 . 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 £80. 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 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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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,

13. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

14. 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.

15. 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.