***Update*** Claim dismissed!

Molts

The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3. It is further denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land.
3.1 The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay and/or communal areas such as access roads, without limitation as to type or ownership of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

4. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors.
4.1. The signage is forbidding, and it is therefore impossible to form a contract. Both terms on the signage relate to “pre-authorised vehicles” and “visitors permits” neither of which were in place at the time of the parking event. This is confirmed by the claimaints own landowner agreement which expressly states “there are currently no permits on site”.
4.2. Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
4.3 Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, established on appeal that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.
4.4 In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
4.5 In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that:
5.1. There was any agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant.
5.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit.
5.3. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

6. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
6.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
6.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.
6.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant is a signatory.
6.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
6.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

7. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

1st draft. Have attempted to use one of Jonersh excellent defence examples and taken out as much as I can see fit that would possibly be covered by C-M's template. Not sure if its the right way to go but I do like the relevant parts of that defence as it appears to fit my case pretty well. Fire away and thank you in advance!

Molts

Bumping for feedback and a quick q regarding MCOL.

The defence particulars section does not allow a blank submission and therefore continuation to the counterclaim tab. Do I ignore this completely on MCOL as I will be submitting via email or just say as much in the text box?

Le_Kirk

You don't do anything on MCOL, defence is submitted by e-mail in line with the instructions in the NEWBIE sticky and in the standard defence template.

Fruitcake

Nothing goes in the defence text box on the MCOL website, absolutely nothing. 

Only respond to MCOL via email as per the guide to court 

Molts

Apologies, I know you're all very busy with the parking consultation but just a quick bump for feedback before I submit the defence. Even a quick thumbs up in the unlikely event all is in order will be very much appreciated!

Le_Kirk

3. It is further denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on XXX land.

Is there a word missing here XXX?  Paragraph 3, 3.1 and 5.2 seem to be arguing the same point.  Having said that, if you have combined the work of @Coupon-mad and @Johnersh and if you check for any more duplication, you cannot be far out.

Molts

Is there a word missing here XXX?

Does seem like it to me but that's how it reads on @Jonersh version. Insert "relevant" perhaps?

Paragraph 3, 3.1 and 5.2 seem to be arguing the same point

Agreed. I'll merge them into one so all the points are covered deleting duplicates.

Thanks Le_Kirk 

KeithP

Molts said:

Is there a word missing here XXX?

Does seem like it to me but that's how it reads on @Jonersh version. Insert "relevant" perhaps?

No, don't use the word relevant. Just put the word the in there.

Le_Kirk

Molts said:

Is there a word missing here XXX?

Does seem like it to me but that's how it reads on @Jonersh version. Insert "relevant" perhaps?

Paragraph 3, 3.1 and 5.2 seem to be arguing the same point

Agreed. I'll merge them into one so all the points are covered deleting duplicates.

Thanks Le_Kirk 

No worries, that's why it is always worth proof reading after you have copied and pasted. It is important to understand what you send to the judge; he/she may ask questions!

Johnersh

I think the addition of 'the' is helpful. 

It's a precedent not a perfect draft, so as sensibly advised, always look at these critically and shape to fit (whoever you take ideas from).