Help please received county court claim form and unsure how to defend

chinners

Driver parked in a car park not realizing it was a  permit only private car park, sign at entrance was not seen - bright sunny day sun blurs sign at entrance and multiple sections managed by Horizon and UKPCM apparently.

Car park used by multiple organizations during the week - this was a saturday afternoon so practically empty and driver did not realize it would be an issue as there are free (1 hour) on street parking adjacent and driver left car for a period of time probably under an hour. Driver came back to see ticket on screen and discarded.

Letters came to keeper of vehicle and was disregarded (know better now after reading on this forum) Letter before claim arrived in December also disregarded (did not know better, sorry) Claim form arrived dated 13th January, have done AOS on 21st Jan and now have to file defence by 15th.

The claim says "The driver of the vehicle with registration number XXX (the Vehicle) parked in breach of terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at nnn - PERMIT - SLEE - nnn on 29/09/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN form the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £70 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £13.45 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at 0.03 per day.
I have read some defences but unsure which lines to use in my defence.  please help! do not have any of the documents to post, really stressed.  

I have sent a SAR to DPO, got automated response.  Had sent letters to Horizon and Gladstone asking for copies of contract, PCN etc but no response.

Redx

Paragraphs please , or nobody will read it
Read post #2 of the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum
Email a SAR to the DPO at the PPC if not done already

chinners

i do apologise - forgot about paragraphs.  Will edit.  I have sent SAR to DPO, I had previously also sent request to Gladstones and Horizon twice but have got no response from them.  I even enclosed cheques to cover photocopy costs.

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

chinners

Redx said:

Paragraphs please , or nobody will read it
Read post #2 of the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum
Email a SAR to the DPO at the PPC if not done already

I have edited - now paragraphs. I have emailed a SAR as well as posted letters weeks ago to Gladstone for documents but got no response. I have read the newbies posts and defense examples but unsure if the PCN/NTK/letters have issues as I do not have them. Struggling to understand what to put in the defense.

I am drafting something and will paste it soon - sounds like clutching at straws though

Redx

No S in Defence , check you are using UK English , not US
A SAR to the claimant DPO will receive an answer within 30 days , or you report them to the ICO
Read recent completed defences and court cases on here , to find something similar , or the defences by Bargepole , then adapt them to suit your bespoke case, then post your draft below , for critique

chinners

Redx said:

No S in Defence , check you are using UK English , not US
A SAR to the claimant DPO will receive an answer within 30 days , or you report them to the ICO
Read recent completed defences and court cases on here , to find something similar , or the defences by Bargepole , then adapt them to suit your bespoke case, then post your draft below , for critique

Yes the S was due to spelling check - I have removed.  Could you take a look at the below and advise please? Should I mention that my request for data was ignored?
In The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

H Parking Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

NNNNNNN (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material date. The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The particulars of the claim stated the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms stipulating on the signage. 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. The terms on the Claimant's signage at the entrance to the park are impossible to be seen or read. The entrance signage is in a position that makes it impossible to read in certain weather conditions e.g. bright sunlight and 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons as to why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from breaching the terms of parking on the land. Signage displayed on the sites that are forbidding signs cannot create a contract.

5.The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. 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 £70. The claim includes an additional £75, for which the calculation or explanation is unfeasible. It is abuse of process from the claimant to issue an inflated claim for an additional sum which is not entitled to recover.

7. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The claimant created uncertainty over De-Minimis as a ground of defence; the unclear stipulations on the signage denoting free parking and allegations made against the defendant ‘agreeing to pay the charge’ which the defendant denies as there were no communication, agreement in writing, and or verbal, in order to claim losses.

8. On the date of the claimed loss, there was no parking charge levied during the hours of which the defendant was on the premises, and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can the claimant lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. The defendant contends there can be no loss shown; no pre-estimate (prior to the vehicle ‘parked in breach’ at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

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. The claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the defendant’s position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Please see above - is this okay?

KeithP

chinners said:

Claim form arrived dated 13th January, have done AOS on 21st Jan and now have to file defence by 15th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2020 to file your Defence.

A couple more days than you thought.

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

1. Print your Defence.
   
2. Sign it and date it.
   
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5. 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'.
   
6. 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.
   
   After filing your Defence, there is more to do...
   
   
7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
   
8. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track , and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou"]
   
9. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.
   
10. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.

chinners

Redx said:

No S in Defence , check you are using UK English , not US
A SAR to the claimant DPO will receive an answer within 30 days , or you report them to the ICO
Read recent completed defences and court cases on here , to find something similar , or the defences by Bargepole , then adapt them to suit your bespoke case, then post your draft below , for critique

Redx - could you help check the draft defence above please? Thanks in advance.

Le_Kirk

Your sentence 3 in paragraph 1 repeats itself.  In paragraph 2, you seem to be mixing up some words you have found in other defences.  Check the 16 pre-written defences linked in the NEWBIE sticky second post and find the correct words.  You need to add the bit about "keeper/driver."  Paragraph 5 is missing a word - it is "proprietary interest."
Not sure what you are trying to say in paragraph 7: -

The claimant created uncertainty over De-Minimis as a ground of defence; 

What does that mean; what are you trying to say?  De minimis usually refers to "de minimis non curat lex" which means "the law does not concern it self with trifles" usually used when someone makes a mistake inputting incorrect VRM into a PDT.

In paragraph 8, remove the bit about "loss"; that argument went out with the Beavis case.

If the claimant has tried to add spurious £60, there is more ammunition to add to your argument by searching for threads (discussions) by CEC16, basher52, jellybelly23 or searching for a discussion (thread) by beamerguy using Abuse of Process as search words.

chinners

Le_Kirk said:

Your sentence 3 in paragraph 1 repeats itself.  In paragraph 2, you seem to be mixing up some words you have found in other defences.  Check the 16 pre-written defences linked in the NEWBIE sticky second post and find the correct words.  You need to add the bit about "keeper/driver."  Paragraph 5 is missing a word - it is "proprietary interest."
Not sure what you are trying to say in paragraph 7: -

The claimant created uncertainty over De-Minimis as a ground of defence; 

What does that mean; what are you trying to say?  De minimis usually refers to "de minimis non curat lex" which means "the law does not concern it self with trifles" usually used when someone makes a mistake inputting incorrect VRM into a PDT.

In paragraph 8, remove the bit about "loss"; that argument went out with the Beavis case.

If the claimant has tried to add spurious £60, there is more ammunition to add to your argument by searching for threads (discussions) by CEC16, basher52, jellybelly23 or searching for a discussion (thread) by beamerguy using Abuse of Process as search words.

thanks!! will amend shortly