Defence to check please

taking_time

Hi
I would be very grateful if someone could check my defence.  Thank you.   It's the costs first template.   I hope this is ok.  

**** i have done a new one further down now ********

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Between

National car parks limited 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                   

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that the driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement, whether express, implied, or by conduct, to pay a ‘parking charge’ to the Claimant.

1.1.  Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, due to the time elapsed since 25/5/2019 it is not known if they were the driver of the vehicle at the time.  Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

2. In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme.  However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £160. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case.  

3. The global sum claimed is unconscionable and it was not shown in large lettering on any consumer signs, and it is averred that the charge offends against Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’), where s71(2) creates a duty on the Court to consider the fairness of a consumer contract.  The court’s attention is drawn (but not limited to) parts 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the list of terms that are likely to be unfair.

4. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of costs. The sum exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from a registered keeper, as prescribed in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’).  It is worth noting that in the Beavis case where the driver was known, the Supreme Court considered and referred more than once to the POFA.

5. Claims pleaded on this basis by multiple parking firms have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court areas in England and Wales since 2019.  Recent examples are appended to this defence; a February 2020 Order from District Judge Fay Wright, sitting at Skipton County Court (Appendix A)  and a similar Order from Deputy District Judge Josephs, sitting at Warwick County Court (Appendix .

6. Applications by AOS member parking firms to try to reach the usually low threshold to set aside multiple strike-out orders have been reviewed by more than one area Circuit Judge, including His Honour Iain Hughes QC, occasioning District Judge Grand at Southampton to hear submissions from a barrister on 11th November 2019. The court refused to set aside the Orders and, tellingly, no appeal was made.  

7. The Judge found that the claims - both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed - represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim.  It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage.  That Judgment is appended (Appendix C).

8. The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity.  The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided.  The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.

9. Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause 'allowing' added costs/damages.  The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018: ''I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.''   

10. The two competing ‘race to the bottom’ ATAs have engineered a veil of legitimacy to protect this industry for too long.  They are not regulators and have failed consumers so badly, that Parliament is currently working on replacing them with a new CoP overseen by the Secretary of State, following the enactment of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.  Many courts have now recognised that a predatory parking firm Claimant using unfair and predatory business practices and inflating their claims with false ‘admin fees’, is not the ‘innocent party’ in a dispute.  In stark contrast to the BPA Board member’s mindset, the will of Parliament as set out in the new 2019 Act is very much consumer-focussed, aiming for:  ''good practice...in the operation or management of private parking facilities as appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable having regard to the interests of persons using such facilities.''  

11. In the alternative, the defence is prejudiced and the court is invited to note that, contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Letter Before Claim omitted evidence of any breach and failed to append the wording of the sign or consumer notice.  Further, the Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and incoherent, lacking specificity re the location of the event and status of the contracting parties and failing to detail any conduct or liability that could give rise to a cause of action.  There is insufficient detail to ascertain the nature, basis and facts of the case but the sum claimed includes unrecoverable costs/damages and is clearly an abuse of process.

12. The court is invited to note that the Beavis case would not have passed had it been pleaded in damages by ParkingEye, and the penalty rule applies to charges that are penal or unconscionable in their construction.  The Supreme Court held at [14] ‘‘where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty.’’  And at [99] ‘‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged.’’

13. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 parking charge which included all operational costs and was constructed in such a way and offered on such ‘brief and clear’ signs with terms set in the interests of the landowner, that they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being struck out as penal and unrecoverable.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings set a high bar that other claims fail to reach.  Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that ParkingEye do not add false ‘debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.

14. This Claimant has failed to plead their case, or to set out their terms or construct their contractual charges in the same way as in Beavis and the penalty rule remains firmly engaged.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish drivers nor to present a motorist with concealed pitfalls or traps, nor to claim an unconscionable total sum.

15. Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any/all of the reasons stated above, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.

(THINK I NEED TO DELETE POINT 16)

16. The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not established thus far, whether the car was parked, or just stopped momentarily and caught by predatory ticketing.  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. Due to the time that has elapsed, it’s not known who the driver was.  We parked and used the car park as a family, both adults are named drivers, insured to drive the car.  I was the registered keeper of the car, which has now been sold.

We drove into the car park.  Used the car park, my husband paid for parking by credit card for the period parked and left the car park.  See credit card statement listing NCP on the date the vehicle was parked.  Halifax credit card receipt.  My husband paid NCP £1.70 on Saturday 25 May 2019, cleared on 27 May 2019.  Credit card in his name, we share the same rare family name.

Perhaps the parking payment machine made an error when the vehicle registration number was entered. 

 I first heard about the parking charge when I received a letter by post from NCP over a month later, purporting that we had not paid for parking.  I wrote to NCP and then BW Legal numerous times over the years saying that we had paid on the day with evidence of the credit card payment receipt. 

I felt harassed by the repeated letters that ignored that we paid on the day and intended to pay for parking.  There were numerous “debt recovery” letters.   The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

18. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

19. The Beavis case is fully distinguished and a more relevant list of binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 and (ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2, both leading examples of the ‘red hand’ rule - i.e. that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.

20. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or the necessary landowner authorisation to issue PCNs under these circumstances and to pursue keepers by means of civil litigation. 

It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, other terms (or instructions to cancel charges due to a surge of complaints) and there is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Companies House lists their company number as xxxxxxxx).  Any purported landowner 'contract' which fails to properly identify the two contracting parties and/or which is in any way redacted (including the signatories, which in some parking claims have been revealed not to be that of the landowner) should be disregarded, along with any undated and/or unsubstantiated records, documents, boundary maps or aerial views, or photos which are capable of manipulation.

 

 

21. For any or all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this claim.

22. In the matter of costs.  If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) the Court to reserve, assess and award the Defendant’s Summary Costs Assessment, to be filed and served at Witness Statement stage in anticipation of a typical late Notice of Discontinuance (‘NoD’) from this Claimant.

23. At NoD stage, or at a hearing if the case proceeds that far, the Court will be taken to facts to support a finding of wholly unreasonable conduct by this Claimant.  Pursuant to CPR 46.5, whilst indemnity costs cannot exceed two thirds of the applicable rate if using legal representation, the Defendant notes that LiP costs are not necessarily capped at £19 ph.  The Defendant will ask for a fairly assessed rate for the hours spent on this case, referencing Spencer & anor v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd.

24. In summary, the Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed. This Claimant knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated ‘parking charge’ claim where the alleged ‘debt’ exceeds the £100 ATA CoP ceiling is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA,  The Judge in the instant case is taken to the Appendices, demonstrating that several court areas continue to summarily strike out private parking cases that include an extravagant and unlawful costs sum.

25. Please note from xxxx date I may be moving house, to be confirmed, all post will be redirected but this will delay it.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

Defendant’s signature:  …………………………….…………………………….

Defendant’s name:   …………………………….…………………………….

Date:                              …………………………….…………………………….

 

Appendix A attached: Order to strike out a similar claim; abuse of process (Skipton)

Appendix B attached: Order to strike out a similar claim; abuse of process (Warwick)

Appendix C: Judgment and reasoning for refusal to set aside Order (Southampton)

‐‐-----‐--------

KeithP

That's an old Defence.
The statement of truth is outdated - pre-April 2020.
Those attachments to a Defence haven't been suggested for many months.

Is this related to any of your earlier threads?

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

Use the newer version.  I dumped the old one for various reasons, not least because putting the facts in as #2 and #3 is easier for the Judge to see that there is a 'defence' in there and also, the new version deals with the fact that the Semark-Jullien case is a damp squib.

taking_time

Thank you very much. I will change it to the new one.  

taking_time

KeithP said:

That's an old Defence.
The statement of truth is outdated - pre-April 2020.
Those attachments to a Defence haven't been suggested for many months.

Is this related to any of your earlier threads?

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Thank you. I am just going to bed so will reply properly tomorrow

taking_time

KeithP said:

That's an old Defence.
The statement of truth is outdated - pre-April 2020.
Those attachments to a Defence haven't been suggested for many months.

Is this related to any of your earlier threads?

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

KeithP
To answer your questions, thank you.
No it's not related to any earlier threads
Issue date is 30/11/2020.  I did the thing to get the extra 30 days on 18/11.  I make it 30/11 plus 5 days plus 30 = 4/1/2021 I need to send my defence by but obviously want to to do it asap.
I will redo the defence and post below.  thank you

taking_time

New defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

(full name of parking firm, not the solicitor!) 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant’s name from N1 claim (can’t be changed to someone else now)                        

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  I was the registered keeper of the car, which has now been sold.  Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, due to the time elapsed since xx/5/2019 it is not known if they were the driver of the vehicle at the time.  Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

3. Due to the time that has elapsed, it’s not known who the driver was.  We parked and used the car park as a family, both adults are named drivers, insured to drive the car.  

We drove into the car park.  Used the car park, my husband paid for parking by credit card for the period parked and left the car park.  See credit card statement listing NCP on the date the vehicle was parked, Halifax credit card receipt.  It was a Saturday the credit card receipt shows the date the car was parked, and the date it was debited from the account, the following Monday.  My husband paid NCP £1.70 on Saturday 25 May 2019, cleared on 27 May 2019.  The credit card is in his name, we share the same rare family name.

Perhaps the parking payment machine made an error when the vehicle registration number was entered. 

I first heard about the parking charge when I received a letter by post from NCP over a month later, purporting that we had not paid for parking.  I wrote to NCP and then BW Legal numerous times over the years saying that we had paid on the day with evidence of the credit card payment receipt. 

I felt harassed by the repeated letters that ignored that we paid on the day and intended to pay for parking.  There were numerous “debt recovery” letters.   The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

5.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

6.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

7.  The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

8.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

9.       Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

10.       Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

11.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

12.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

13.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

14.   Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i)                 Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii)                Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii)                 Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

15.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

16.  In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

17.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

18.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

 

taking_time

Is this ok?  Thank you, very much appreciated    

KeithP

taking_time said:

KeithP said:

That's an old Defence.
The statement of truth is outdated - pre-April 2020.
Those attachments to a Defence haven't been suggested for many months.

Is this related to any of your earlier threads?

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

KeithP
Issue date is 30/11/2020.  I did the thing to get the extra 30 days on 18/11.  I make it 30/11 plus 5 days plus 30 = 4/1/2021 I need to send my defence by but obviously want to to do it asap.

You are right with your Defence filing target date, but for perhaps the wrong reasons.
30th November plus 5 days for service plus 28 days gives us 2nd January. As 2nd January is a Saturday, you have until closing on the next working day.

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th January 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

taking_time

Thank you 😊   
I have done a new defence above your post, using the second post in the Newbies thread.  Thanks 

nosferatu1001

Why do you copy in everything ? You only show us what you changed. We don't want to look through the whole template in case you changed something randomly.