Preparation of Defence HX / Gladstones

blancswann

KeithP said:

You must mention signs. 

It is the signs that form the basis of any contract.
Conversely, the lack of signs, or the poor quality of them, could mean that no contract was ever formed, so there is no possibility of a contract being broken.

Does the fact that I can't remember what the signs were like matter? What if they produce evidence to show the signs are clear? I naively thought that paying for the parking and having a receipt would be evidence enough that a contract wasn't breached. The sign might have asked me to hop on one leg and jump through a small hoop - but it was so long, I didn't have time to read it all!

nosferatu1001

No, and you get to that bridge IF you come to up
Look at it this way
You have 1 defence. 1. If you DONT raise the argument, tehre is a 0% chance you will win on it. 

Le_Kirk

blancswann said:

KeithP said:

You must mention signs. 

It is the signs that form the basis of any contract.
Conversely, the lack of signs, or the poor quality of them, could mean that no contract was ever formed, so there is no possibility of a contract being broken.

Does the fact that I can't remember what the signs were like matter? What if they produce evidence to show the signs are clear? I naively thought that paying for the parking and having a receipt would be evidence enough that a contract wasn't breached. The sign might have asked me to hop on one leg and jump through a small hoop - but it was so long, I didn't have time to read it all!

If the signs were clear and there were plenty of them, you would have seen them.  I rest my case!

blancswann

Can someone please take a look at my statement and offer any advice/changes etc. 

DEFENCE STATEMENT

 

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

 

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the XX/XX/XX in a parking bay at Marco Island Car Park and the defendant has a valid proof of payment receipt showing a partial matching VRN. The defendant paid the correct amount and did not overstay the specified time.

 

3. The claimant states the defendant failed to purchase or validate a pay and display ticket. The defendant is in possession of the parking receipt which states that the ticket does not need to be displayed, therefore the defendant is not clear as to what the pay and display ticket that the claimant refers to is.

 

3.1. The electronic ticketing machine accepted a partial VNR and proceeded to complete the cash transaction and issued the payment receipt. Any breach of contract should have been identified at the point of transaction and if incorrect should have been rejected or made clear to the defendant at this stage. Allowing the defendant reasonable opportunity to correct or reject the terms of the contract.

 

3.2 The ticket showing the partial VNR which matches the car in question is proof that the car parked for the time allowed and did not overstay the allotted time and can be identified beyond any reasonable doubt, against the parking receipt. 

 

4. The Particulars of Claim contain no contractual details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states ‘a breach of terms’ but does not offer any further details as to what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.

 

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. 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.

 

7. The defendant has written confirmation from the landowner representative clearly stating that the purchased parking receipt resembled the VNR to a satisfactory level and therefore agreed to cancel the charge.

 

8. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

 

9. 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.

 

10. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. 

 

11. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper. 

 

12. The claim includes an additional £50 for ‘Legal representative’s costs’, such costs are not permissible under Civil Procedure Rules – Part 27. 

 

13. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver 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. 

 

14. 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.

Le_Kirk

It's just DEFENCE
It's VRM not VRN or VNR
If they have added £60 for debt recovery costs or similar phrasing, check out the Abuse of Process threads (discussions) at: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1  and:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75937581#Comment_75937581

1505grandad

Para 13  "........... The Defendant denies that the driver 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."

I would suggest the you have already stated who the driver is in the first few paras as you have not denied being the driver while purchasing ticket etc.

blancswann

Le_Kirk said:

It's just DEFENCE
It's VRM not VRN or VNR
If they have added £60 for debt recovery costs or similar phrasing, check out the Abuse of Process threads (discussions) at: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1  and:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75937581#Comment_75937581

What does VRM mean?
what do you mean ‘it’s just Defence’?

blancswann

1505grandad said:

Para 13  "........... The Defendant denies that the driver 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."

I would suggest the you have already stated who the driver is in the first few paras as you have not denied being the driver while purchasing ticket etc.

Sorry, but I don’t understand your point, can you explain what I should change or add?

1505grandad

Para 2  -  "The defendant paid the correct amount and did not overstay the specified time."

Para 3   -   "The claimant states the defendant failed to purchase or validate a pay and display ticket."

Para 3.1   -   "Any breach of contract should have been identified at the point of transaction and if incorrect should have been rejected or made clear to the defendant at this stage. Allowing the defendant reasonable opportunity to correct or reject the terms of the contract."

No mention that there was anyone else i.e. driver 

blancswann

1505grandad said:

Para 2  -  "The defendant paid the correct amount and did not overstay the specified time."

Para 3   -   "The claimant states the defendant failed to purchase or validate a pay and display ticket."

Para 3.1   -   "Any breach of contract should have been identified at the point of transaction and if incorrect should have been rejected or made clear to the defendant at this stage. Allowing the defendant reasonable opportunity to correct or reject the terms of the contract."

No mention that there was anyone else i.e. driver 

Shall I change the wording from defendant to driver?