Money Claim Online received

nosferatu1001

Youve had two weeks to produce your own draft. 
Much better for us to see what you have written than throw ideas and hopoe they stick. 

KeithP

In the second post of the NEWBIES thread it says:

THEN - UNLESS YOU HAVE A PARKING EYE CLAIM (WHICH IS DIFFERENT) - GO & READ THIS TEMPLATE DEFENCE AND EDIT IT TO SUIT:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

The first sentence on that thread is:

PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THE NEW 2020 TEMPLATE DEFENCE, WHICH CAN BE ADAPTED IN HALF AN HOUR (honestly!). 

Please read the rest of that post and all should be clear.

Basically all you need to do is adjust paras 17 and 18 to fit your circumstances.

Le_Kirk

The defence for which you provided a link is from 2017, please follow the advice given by @KeithP and @nosferatu1001 and use the new defence template.

Coupon-mad

However, these two bits from that 2017 defence lend themselves to being #17,  #18 and #19 (change the numbering lower down) of the template in your case!  I've added some specifics at the start, taken from your first post.  I've assumed here you were the driver both times and I feel you need to admit that, if so...is that true?

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
17.   These parking charges relate to predatory ticketing at the housing estate of rented flats where the Defendant lives.  There is a garage in a courtyard type area and residents with garages have always - since well before the start of the Defendant's tenancy - enjoyed unfettered rights or easements to pass, repass and use the courtyard to access their garages, including parking in front of their own garage.  Without any consensus of landlords or tenants, the estate managers foisted a notorious ex-clamper firm, PCM(UK), on residents and the Defendant can testify to the fact that the residents' lives have been made a misery due to the private nuisance caused by this Claimant's conduct.  This aggressive and predatory ticketing firm were inflicted on residents long after the development was built and there were no parking restrictions at the time of signing the tenancy agreement, which will be provided in evidence before trial.  Tenants have been receiving parking tickets like confetti, based upon a couple of minutes of photographs which allows no fair grace period for anyone to fetch the permit from their flat, let alone read terms on their sparse signs.

18.  It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park.  The Defendant avers that there was an implied entitlement to park outside the garage, deriving from the terms of the lease and the fact that a garage was allocated to the flat and that stopping outside the garage caused no obstruction to other users and was the norm, until PCM(UK) arrived.  Such rights or easements cannot be fettered by any alleged new parking terms.  That permits were forced upon residents (who merely displayed them as a courtesy) does not mean that the scheme was agreed or that the Defendant accepted any variance to the lease agreement.  It would never have been agreed by residents to pay £100 a day to park outside their allocated garages or be forced to park a mile away to avoid this thug firm - but this is what has occurred.

19. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot:
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
(ii) that 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.

MpowerM3

Many thanks, Coupon-Mad. I've inserted those points in to the template defence, renumbered everything and changed the red parts to fit my details. I'll convert that to a PDF, attach the other judgement too and email it all off and check back in a day or two to see if they've acknowledged receiving this at MCOL.

MpowerM3

Got an email from Gladstones today with an N180 form attached. Email reads :
We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim. Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.  You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment. Yours

KeithP

When filing your Defence you will have read...

After filing your Defence, there is more to do...

And it tells you that one of those things is...

Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire and the usual intimidating template letter saying they 'intend to proceed'. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.

Coupon-mad

Why are we being updated with stuff that everyone gets, on so many threads right now? 

Court claims follow a well-trodden path of paperwork.  Everything is normal and expected, and as set out in the KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN section of the NEWBIES thread.

MpowerM3

Just got home and found a letter from my local court, where the case was transferred to, saying 
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1 The defendents defence is struck out.
2 By 4pm on the 8th of September the defendant shall file and service a defence which complies with CPR 16.5.
The defendant should avoid confusing the defence with a skeleton argument.

The template defence was sent with the only modification Coupon Mad suggested at the top of this page of 17, 18 and 19.

Kinda stuck on how they considering that non compliant and a skeleton defence. Any advice ?

nosferatu1001

Not confusing. The courts saying defence is too much like an argument 
you need to write w better defence. Do so.