County Court Claim Form

Le_Kirk

He was very keen on ticking mediation box once I receive the questionnaire (as Coupon-mad mentioned). 

Mediation is not recommended for parking cases.  There is no mediation unless the PPC is prepared to accept what you want to pay - £ZERO!

Snakes_Belly

Mediation does have a place but not in parking cases. You are not going to get away with paying £10.00 which is all I would have offered.

Erfan1135

Le_Kirk said:

He was very keen on ticking mediation box once I receive the questionnaire (as Coupon-mad mentioned). 

Mediation is not recommended for parking cases.  There is no mediation unless the PPC is prepared to accept what you want to pay - £ZERO!

Snakes_Belly said:

Mediation does have a place but not in parking cases. You are not going to get away with paying £10.00 which is all I would have offered.

Thanks for your reply, I have only contacted them as Coupon-mad mentioned to find out what they can do about the parking tickets

Erfan1135

So I have got a response for my SAR request, and right now I can confirm all the tickets are issued as parked with no permit, there are pictures that show my car parked at bay 34, but no tickets except one mentioned anything about bay 34. So I assume they are only referring for parking without a permit and that would be their main argument? (please correct me if I am wrong).
They have persisted on putting tickets on my car on my own (parents) property land almost 3 days a week for about a month and a few of these tickets were issued at 4 am.
Would you all suggest I still working on defence wording by @bargepole which is a residential defence with some editing?

Coupon-mad

They have persisted on putting tickets on my car on my own (parents) property land almost 3 days a week for about a month and a few of these tickets were issued at 4 am.

That's no way to live.   Have your parents and you bombarded th MA who has caused all this, with written complaints about harassment and interfering with their family's rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property?  Have you as a family, raised this with your MP and pointed out what other M{s said about residential pra-ivate parking harassment, in the Hansard records of debates in Feb, July and Nov 2018?

Would you all suggest I still working on defence wording by @bargepole which is a residential defence with some editing?

I haven't looked back over your thread but a combination of that, plus the stuff about the Semark-Jullien case from the TEMPLATE DEFENCE, amalgamated together with your own facts as para #2 and para #3.

beamerguy

I have contacted citizen advice and have an appointment with them next week.

Let me tell you about the CAB ..... I was helping a young mum a couple of years ago about council re housing.  The CAB lady did not have a clue and only made reference to a google search.
She stumbled at every step and frankly I thought she had dementia

The CAB are not trained in the parking scam .... as said cancel it, you will never get the advice you get on here

D_P_Dance

I once asked CAB about SOGA, the advisor did not have a clue.  They may be OK on benefits and debt, but not on Parking law.  I would cancel the appointment.  

Erfan1135

Good afternoon everyone. Hope you all are well and healthy. 
So far I have written to my MP (email) and completed my defence, any feedback would be greatly appreciated on this final version. para 2, 3

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on xx/2018 to xx/2018. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘xxx’. The Defendant has, since xx/2015, lived with his parents who held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. 33 at that location. As a tenant of this property, we are denying accepting any contract with this third party. The defendant father owns a vehicle and uses the specific bay to park his vehicle. The bay No. xx occupied by the defendant on several occasions and it had been authorised and consented by the neighbour who held legal title under the terms of a lease and did not own a vehicle to use.  

The rest of the defence is the same as the template by @bargepole as I thought the facts are similar to mine and I have only changed the para 9 of that defence to the stuff about the Semark-Jullien case from the template defence as @Coupon-mad recommended.

I have tried to just mention the short facts and not anything about them issuing tickets at 4, 5 am several times as I thought that must come in WS. 

I can add the full defence if that is okay with you.

Redx

Read 2 in the template defence , where people state if they are Keeper , driver , or both , depending on the case

I would suggest that 2 in your case should be that short statement , making renumbering required to say 3 & 4 etc

Erfan1135

Redx said:

Read 2 in the template defence , where people state if they are Keeper , driver , or both , depending on the case

I would suggest that 2 in your case should be that short statement , making renumbering required to say 3 & 4 etc

Thanks and noted. 
Updated version. (the previous 2 is moved to 4 now.)

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the defendant was the driver.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘xx’. The Defendant has, since xx/2015, lived with his parents who held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. xx at that location. As a tenant of this property, we are denying accepting any contract with this third party. The defendant father owns a vehicle and uses the specific bay to park his vehicle. The bay No. xx occupied by the defendant on several occasions and it had been authorised and consented by the neighbour who held legal title under the terms of a lease and did not own a vehicle to use.