Stockwick V First Parking LLP (Court Defence Facts, Please Review?)

Stockwick

Hi Everyone,
So I have been served my 'Claim Form' from the County Court regarding two PCN's I received totalling just shy of £400.00.
I have began writing my defence so far, and was wondering if you could give me your feedback, with any suggestions to include/exclude.
I have used the template suggested on this forum, so only the first 7 points are written by myself, do I need to include the rest?
Please see here - https://filebin.net/ud2tyl5nqi4u5bsg
P.S - Stockwick is a false name, don't worry!

KeithP

You now have three threads. All are about First Parking.

Are they all about one parking incident, or is there more than one parking incident involved?

Your link wants me to download a .zip file to my computer. I'll leave that for someone else.

Redx

please post the issue date from the claim form please

make sure you have emailed a SAR to the DPO at the PPC 1st Parking for all your data asap, attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law (DPA2018)

2 PCN,s cannot possibly add up to a claim for £400 , the most any PCN is would be £100 , or less, so they have added false charges

you would be better off posting the 2 paragraphs you have adapted below , even if you have renumbered them accordingly

its FIRST PARKING vs Stockwick, not the other way round

have your threads merged by a board guide if its the same topic

Stockwick

Claim Number: XXXXXX

Between

First Parking LLP

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXXXXXX                

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

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:

1. It is admitted to First Parking LLP that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver for the Penalty Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
   
   

2. It is, and was not, admitted to First Parking LLP that the Defendant was the driver during the Penalty Charge Notice 3XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The Defendant remains unaware of this Penalty Charge Notice, receiving no such notice either physically on the vehicle or via post. Therefore, 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.
   
   

3. Both Penalty Charge Notice took place at the Defendant’s place of employment (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) where the Defendant was authorised and registered to park, holding and purchasing the appropriate permit for both 2019, and 2020.
   
   

4. Within the Claimants Particulars, it is stated in (4) that “The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not”. The Defendant finds this an act of fabrication, with no agreement entered.
   
   

5. 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 Consumer Rights Act 2015. Furthermore, the Defendant suffers from Hyperopia, Astigmatism, and Colour Vision Deficiency, all of which, significantly affecting vision. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.
   
   

6. The Defendant considers the Claimant's photographic evidence as inconsistent and insufficient. All photographs provided have a ‘Time In’ and ‘Time Out’ stamp as taking place on 01/01/2020 at 00:00:00. Furthermore, it is apparent that a further time-stamp has been added on top of these images manually, inconsistent in font, shape, and size. It is argued that this could have been added and amended at any time by the Claimant.
   
   

7. The Defendant’s vehicle at the time (2019 BMW Shadow Edition) features a large bezel around the circumference of the windshield. This results in a large proportion of the dashboard being hidden by the tint this produces. It is argued that the photographs taken do not prove, nor disprove that the parking permit may have been present under this tint. Therefore, the Defendant argues that this is insufficient evidence, unless alternative angles can be provided, clearly showing the dashboard behind this tint.

Redx

you havent told us the issue date of the claim form

FIRST PARKING do not issue PENALTY charge notices

I asked that you post only the adapted paragraphs 2 & 3 from the coupon mad template, the ones you have altered in the order of your alterations, on a superficial skim read those above dont look like paragraphs 2 &3 , or typical adaptations

some paragraphs have data that is already included in the defence template

Stockwick

Redx said:

you havent told us the issue date of the claim form

FIRST PARKING do not issue PENALTY charge notices

I asked that you post only the adapted paragraphs 2 & 3 from the coupon mad template, the ones you have altered in the order of your alterations, on a superficial skim read those above dont look like paragraphs 2 &3 , or typical adaptations

some paragraphs have data that is already included in the defence template

Issue Date: 22/03/2021
What should I change the 'Penalty Charge Notice' to then?
I broadened Paragraph 2 & 3 across the 7 points. Is that not okay considering I have multiple defence points?

KeithP

Change Penalty Charge Notice to the three words clearly seen on the documents you have before you - Parking Charge Notice.

This was pointed out on one of your earlier threads.

KeithP

Stockwick said:

Redx said:

you havent told us the issue date of the claim form

Issue Date: 22/03/2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd March, you have until Monday 12th April to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th April 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Stockwick

KeithP said:

Stockwick said:

Redx said:

you havent told us the issue date of the claim form

Issue Date: 22/03/2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd March, you have until Monday 12th April to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th April 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Hi Keith,
Many thanks for that.
I have just filed the Acknowledgment of Service.
Should I include all the other points within the template? I am not sure I fully understand all the legal terms, but I presume these should all be kept in?
What do you think of my defence points so far (Points 1-7)?

Redx

get rif of 4) , that is a stock claim in all these cases, usually on the signs, where the rules have allegedly not been complied with

everything else in the template will be included in your final draft

Fruitcake

In para 1, you have not denied liability for the claim.

Para 2 does not make sense. 
"It is, and was not ..." 
Referring to the PoFA is pointless since the driver's identity has been admitted.

Para 3 incorrectly refers to a penalty charge.

Delete para 4. The signage is the contract, and by parking it is averred that the driver agreed. 

Para 5 is already covered in the template

I'll leave others to comment on paras 6 and 7.


You need to use all the other points in the template as well. You need to read them and understand why they are there.