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

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.

i have found some Abuse of Process defences and updating. Can I ask - just seen someone mentioned no named solicitor signed the claim form - is this referring to a signature or that no name was inserted. on the claim form I received there is a name printed in the "Signed" section but no signature - is that an issue please?

chinners

Thanks - I have found some Abuse of Process defences and updating.
Can I ask - just seen someone mentioned no named solicitor signed the claim form - is this referring to a signature or that no name was inserted on the form?
On the claim form I received there is a name printed in the "Signed" section but no signature - is that somehting to include in the defence please?

chinners

should I include that in my defence?

chinners

Hi Redx and Le_Kirk thank you for your help so far.

I know you are busy and sorry to bother you but could you please review the below draft - I have amended according to your advice.  Thanks!

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

5. 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.

6. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Community Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has proprietary 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.

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 £70. The claim includes an additional £70, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

11. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

12. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

14. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. 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 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

15. In summary, 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. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:

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

Le_Kirk

That is the short version of the Abuse of Process, which is OK as the longer version (with evidence) can be submitted at witness statement time.  In the meantime read the whole of the abuse of process thread (discussion) HERE and make sure you read the part added by Coupon-mad on page 2 HERE

chinners

Le_Kirk said:

That is the short version of the Abuse of Process, which is OK as the longer version (with evidence) can be submitted at witness statement time.  In the meantime read the whole of the abuse of process thread (discussion) HERE and make sure you read the part added by Coupon-mad on page 2 HERE

Thank you ever so much.
I have read most of the abuse of process thread - they advised to use Bargepole's concise version in defence and longer in WS. I will be using the longer one in my witness statement,

Is the defence draft okay otherwise please?  I want to send it today.

Le_Kirk

Looks OK

1505grandad

Just checking  -  you will be stating the correct name of the claimant as per Court docs.

chinners

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  you will be stating the correct name of the claimant as per Court docs.

oh yes and car reg etc.  - thanks for asking 

nosferatu1001

Name - thats fine. No actual signature. "electronic" signature.