Gladstone/ES Parking - County Court Claim Form

Le_Kirk

It looks like you have found an old defence as we do not use Caernarfon any more.  See the Template Defence recently produced by Coupon-mad for just this type of occurrence where the PPC /solicitor is claiming spurious £60 for debt control.  Link here to the post: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1
Also, if you keep your second paragraph, it should be: -

which the Claimant has failed so to do

1505grandad

As above.

Did you not see previous post by  KeithP which included:-                          
"To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Guidance on creating a Defence is also in that thread - in the first post on that thread."

Umkomaas

There seem to be many posters wasting much energy (and hours) through not reading (and following) advice given by highly experienced regulars. 

Coupon-mad

I think the problem is people are not reading the whole thread KeithP points them to read. 

The template defence is RIGHT THERE in every reply KeithP makes, just in the post above the one his link goes to.

Umkomaas

It's draining on OP resources and wasteful of regulars' energy. 

el_patron

Ahhh I can't believe I didn't see the template defence from KeithP's link. I'll redo the defence with that template, dont know how I missed that..

el_patron

Hi I've now used Coupon-Mad's template defence. My points 16 and 17 are:

16.      The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA. 

17      The Claimants has also failed to adhere to ATA grace periods. The vehicle was on the premises for no more than 10 minutes. Therefor no breach of contract could have occurred as there was not enough time to reasonably enter a contract.

 

The rest of the defence follows the template, please let me know what you think.

Thanks

Umkomaas

16.      The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA. 

I think I'd be saying that since becoming aware of this claim, the defendant, in the role of the vehicle's keeper, has visited the site to view the signage and denies that the location includes prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge.

Le_Kirk

17      The Claimants has also failed to adhere to ATA grace periods.

As well as what Umkomaas has advised above, change your 17 to this: -

17      The Claimants has also failed to adhere to ATA grace periods.

Note the "s" has been struck out OR

17      The Claimants has have also failed to adhere to ATA grace periods.

el_patron

Thanks guys, I will make these changes and send it on