Civil Enforcement - Court Action Assistance needed

Khanology

Hi all,
Am new to posting on the forums but have been a long-time follower of MSE generally, and the parking related threads/advice.

Firstly, I have to say, you're all legends! The amount of assistance I've seen people receive is phenomenal - hats off to those fighting the good fight!

The vehicle that I'm the registered keeper for recieved an "invoice" for payment of a purported fine for overstaying in a car park.This was followed up by threatening debt collectors letters which were ignored. The original invoice was responded to with an online appeal using information from the sticky/forum as I have used on other occasions.

The particulars of the incident are that the driver was collecting regular users of a council leisure centre - this lesiure centre have installed a ipad based system requiring people who park to enter their registration in the building. Usually, the driver/those being picked up oblige if parking or staying for an extended period of time, but it seems on this occasion this was not done, and the invoice refers to a stay of around 17 minutes (meaning the driver expired the initial grace time). The driver did not realise they stayed over any time limit (usually expecting 20 minute grace periods as is common).

I have done a SAR, but am not sure it will be honoured as I have not recieved even a confirmation of this yet (was done via email to the information officers e-mail listed on CE's privacy policy).

On this occasion, CE have decided to log a money claim with the following details:
Claim Summary
Claimant - Civil Enforcement Limited
Claim Number - REMOVED
Defendant - REMOVED
Amount Claimed - £193.57
Court Fee - £25.00
Solicitor Costs - £50.00
Total Amount - £268.57
Issue Date - 20/12/2019

I have completed the AoS on the 21st Dec and am in the process of putting together my defence/taking pictures etc. and wanted some help if possible please.

I have recieved the particulars of claim from CE, and due the information within it, I was a little confused as to the best route to take. There are a few grounds that I am writing up a defence on but then it started to sound rambly.

Is it best to focus on one particular issue or bring multiple reasons (as sometimes I can see others doing similar but being told to dial it back) - I am attaching the particulars of claim so that I can get a little guidance on where to focus the defence - I can then post up my draft for review?

Sorry if I'm going about any of this in the wrong way, it's the first time raising on the forums but please let me know if there's anything helpful I can add.

Khanology

As a new users MSE isn't lettting me post links, but here are the URLS:

https:// pasteboard.co/IOIhmjg.jpg
https:// pasteboard.co/IOIhBfV.jpg

Thanks

Redx

10 minutes is the usual standard grace period , although some places allow longer

If proof of I D was attached to the SAR , their DPO has no option other than to honour it , it's mandatory under GDPR

The AOS was done too early , should have been left until say the 27th , so it shortens the defence deadline doing it too early

Multiple reasons , see other recent defences that also include abuse of process and the CRA

Post the proposed draft below , for critique

KeithP

Khanology wrote: »

On this occasion, CE have decided to log a money claim with the following details:
Issue Date - 20/12/2019

I have completed the AoS on the 21st Dec.

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 21st December, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th January 2020 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Khanology

Redx wrote: »

10 minutes is the usual standard grace period , although some places allow longer

If proof of I D was attached to the SAR , their DPO has no option other than to honour it , it's mandatory under GDPR

The AOS was done too early , should have been left until say the 27th , so it shortens the defence deadline doing it too early

Multiple reasons , see other recent defences that also include abuse of process and the CRA

Post the proposed draft below , for critique

Thanks for the response.

I didn't attach proof of ID as research on this forum suggested it wasn't required as I was providing enough information to ID me, but I have replied chasing a response and attached ID now.

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 21st December, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th January 2020 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Thank you.

Please find my draft defence below - welcome any feedback on things I should omit/change/add - or if there are other factors usually at play that I may not have included in my explanation of the circumstances.

In terms of proving patronage - the driver was picking up patrons (their children) who were attending a regular youth club - will witness statement from the youth club owner will suffice?

Also, numbering, haven't tidied up yet, but does it matter if it's one sequential list, or should subpoints be numbered as 5.1, 5.2 for example.

Background - the driver was an authorised patron of the onsite business

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The Claimant is known to be a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical claims with Particulars of Claim so sparse as to be incoherent (as in this case). The Claimant is in fundamental breach of CPR 16.4 and paragraph 3.6 of Practice Direction 16 in failing to provide adequate particulars of the Claim. If the claim is for a breach of contract, no details have been provided about how the driver is alleged to have entered into a contract, or what its terms were (CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7).

3. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility.

4. The Defendant has already proved patronage, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and pad device that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a PCN that was not properly issued from the outset.

Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon keypad

5. According to the sparse signs in this car park, it now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge and despite there being no Pay & Display machines or similar, visitors were expected to know to input their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This was far from clearly signed, and the driver did not enter the premises.

6. Prior to the Defendant's visit, Civil Enforcement had recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists. Their Trade Body Code of Practice states at 18.11: ''Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.''

7. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change and unexpected obligation to use an iPad, or risk £100 penalty. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

8. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant researched this issue and was advised to complain to the landowner. Unsurprisingly, this was conspicuous by its absence as an option offered by Civil Enforcement Ltd in their signs or paperwork, prior to commencing proceedings.

9. The only route offered was a supposed 'appeal' to Civil Enforcement Ltd themselves, but the Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believed from initial research, that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of staff and consumers.

5.2. This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, Civil Enforcement Ltd themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.

No legitimate interest - the penalty rule remains engaged

6. 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 in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against patrons even when the business in fact supports the Defendant in wanting an unfair charge to be cancelled.

7. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When - all too often at this location - Civil Enforcement unfairly harvest the data of a registered keeper to charge a genuine patron, any commercial justification in the form of landowner support for such unfair ticketing is de facto absent.

7.1. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was stopped, with driver still in the vehicle, in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

7.2. This case is fully distinguished in all respects from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. That Supreme Court decision sets a high bar for parking firms, not a blanket precedent, and the Beavis case essentially turned on a 'complex' and compelling legitimate interest and very clear notices, where the terms were held not to involve any lack of good faith or 'concealed pitfall or trap'. Completely unlike the instant case.

8. In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers). Expecting a driver to somehow realise they need to input their VRN into an unseen keypad, in what the consumer is confident is an unrestricted free car park for patrons with no visible machines of any description, is indisputably a 'concealed pitfall' and cannot be described as a 'relevant obligation'.

9. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator.

9.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. At this location, the Claimant has failed on all counts and the data gathered about patrons of the site is unconscionable and excessive, given the lack of transparency about the risk of a charge for failing to do something that the driver never knew was a requirement.

Lack of good faith, fairness or transparency and misleading business practices

10. If a parking firm was truly acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring that patrons could not miss the fact that, if they did receive an unfair PCN as a genuine customer, they had a right to ask the landowner/Managers to cancel it. Clearly the Claimants interest is purely in misleading and punishing customers and extracting as much money as possible in three figure penalties, given that this is the only way Civil Enforcement make any money.

11. The Claimant's negligent or deliberately unfair business practice initially caused the unfair PCN to arise, then the Claimant's silence regarding the simple option of landowner cancellation rights, directly caused these unwarranted proceedings. This Claimant cannot be heard to blame consumers for not trying a futile 'appeal' to them, whilst themselves hoping the Defendant does not discover that Civil Enforcement withheld the option of landowner cancellation all along.

11.1. By failing to adequately alert patrons to the keypad, and then withholding from the registered keeper any/all information about the 'user agreement' with the landowner which would have enable an immediate route of cancellation, are 'misleading omissions' of material facts. These are specific breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and transgress the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (this relatively untested legislation was enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not actively considered in that case). As such, this claim must fail.

Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

12. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

13. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case, given that they have a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and (shamefully) this firm whose main business is supposed to be parking 'management' as a service provision, files tens of thousands of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

14. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

15. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

Why does it say 'pad device' and not 'keypad device' that I'm sure was in the original?

Apart from that the defence looks fine, as long as you know that at WS stage you will need a supplementary WS about the added £82.

Khanology

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why does it say 'pad device' and not 'keypad device' that I'm sure was in the original?

Apart from that the defence looks fine, as long as you know that at WS stage you will need a supplementary WS about the added £82.

Thanks for the response - it originally said iPad, which I don't know is true (i.e. is it Android or Apple??) - I can change it to "keypad"?

Is the wording around "The Defendant has already proved patronage" correct?

Sorry, added £82? I believe they've inflated the original £100 invoice and then added £85 in "costs"

Coupon-mad

You can change it to keypad.

Usually CEL add £82 for false costs and a few quid interest, if this is CEL?

Khanology

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can change it to keypad.

Usually CEL add £82 for false costs and a few quid interest, if this is CEL?

Thank you - changed.

Indeed, understood what you mean now - yes they did and yes it's CEL. Total is £193.57 so £100, plus £82, plus interest.

Also, does a defence around stopping, not parking also hold water - i.e. The driver was stopped (not in a parking space), whilst remaining in the vehicle - or is this unecessary/not valid?

Thanks again for all the prompt assistance - very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

does a defence around stopping, not parking also hold water - i.e. The driver was stopped (not in a parking space), whilst remaining in the vehicle - or is this unecessary/not valid?

Can be, if we are only talking about ten minutes or so, but yours was 17 mins.

You should elaborate here, if you were only collecting a passenger and not parking and leaving the car, say so:

4. The Defendant has already proved patronage,

Khanology

Ok, so this is the final defence before finalise it and print and sign - can I get some feedback please?

Appreciated.

DEFENCE

Background - the driver was an authorised patron of the onsite business

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The Claimant is known to be a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical claims with Particulars of Claim so sparse as to be incoherent (as in this case). The Claimant is in fundamental breach of CPR 16.4 and paragraph 3.6 of Practice Direction 16 in failing to provide adequate particulars of the Claim. If the claim is for a breach of contract, no details have been provided about how the driver is alleged to have entered into a contract, or what its terms were (CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7).

3. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility.

4. The driver was an authorised patron, collecting authorised passengers and not parking. It is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and keypad device that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a PCN that was not properly issued from the outset.

Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon keypad

5. The Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’. The Court of Appeal on this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. It would appear that the Claimant is attempting to wrongfully persuade the court. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.

6. It now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge and despite there being no Pay & Display machines or similar, visitors were expected to know to input their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This was far from clearly signed, and the driver did not enter the premises.

7. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change and unexpected obligation to use a keypad, or risk £100 penalty. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

8. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant researched this issue and was advised to complain to the landowner. Unsurprisingly, this was conspicuous by its absence as an option offered by Civil Enforcement Ltd in their signs or paperwork, prior to commencing proceedings.

9. The only route offered was a supposed 'appeal' to Civil Enforcement Ltd themselves, but the Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believed from initial research, that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of staff and consumers.

10. This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, Civil Enforcement Ltd themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self -regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.

No legitimate interest - the penalty rule remains engaged

11. 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 in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against patrons even when the business in fact supports the Defendant in wanting an unfair charge to be cancelled.

12. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When - all too often at this location - Civil Enforcement unfairly harvest the data of a registered keeper to charge a genuine patron, any commercial justification in the form of landowner support for such unfair ticketing is de facto absent.

13. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was stopped, with driver still in the vehicle, in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

14. This case is fully distinguished in all respects from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. That Supreme Court decision sets a high bar for parking firms, not a blanket precedent, and the Beavis case essentially turned on a 'complex' and compelling legitimate interest and very clear notices, where the terms were held not to involve any lack of good faith or 'concealed pitfall or trap'. Completely unlike the instant case.

15. In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers). Expecting a driver to somehow realise they need to input their VRN into an unseen keypad, in what the consumer is confident is an unrestricted free car park for patrons with no visible machines of any description, is indisputably a 'concealed pitfall' and cannot be described as a 'relevant obligation'.

16. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator.

17. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. At this location, the Claimant has failed on all counts and the data gathered about patrons of the site is unconscionable and excessive, given the lack of transparency about the risk of a charge for failing to do something that the driver never knew was a requirement.

Lack of good faith, fairness or transparency and misleading business practices

18. If a parking firm was truly acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring that patrons could not miss the fact that, if they did receive an unfair PCN as a genuine customer, they had a right to ask the landowner/Managers to cancel it. Clearly the Claimants interest is purely in misleading and punishing customers and extracting as much money as possible in three figure penalties, given that this is the only way Civil Enforcement make any money.

19. The Claimant's negligent or deliberately unfair business practice initially caused the unfair PCN to arise, then the Claimant's silence regarding the simple option of landowner cancellation rights, directly caused these unwarranted proceedings. This Claimant cannot be heard to blame consumers for not trying a futile 'appeal' to them, whilst themselves hoping the Defendant does not discover that Civil Enforcement withheld the option of landowner cancellation all along.

20. By failing to adequately alert patrons to the keypad, and then withholding from the registered keeper any/all information about the 'user agreement' with the landowner which would have enable an immediate route of cancellation, are 'misleading omissions' of material facts. These are specific breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and transgress the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (this relatively untested legislation was enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not actively considered in that case). As such, this claim must fail.

Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

21. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

22. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case, given that they have a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and (shamefully) this firm whose main business is supposed to be parking 'management' as a service provision, files tens of thousands of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

23. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

24. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.