Forbidding signs and pre existing rights

Grizebeck

Trainerman said:

Thanks @Grizebeck. We are working on something that will give us even better defence(s) so right now, we are letting sleeping dogs lie for a little longer and keeping an eye on Mcol

Yes i get what your saying!🤣

Trainerman

We have had another court claim arrive, for another member of our 'group'. I would be grateful if @KeithP could do his magic maths for an issue date of August 26th please. I do not want to drop an elementary clanger !

KeithP

Trainerman said:

We have had another court claim arrive, for another member of our 'group'. I would be grateful if @KeithP could do his magic maths for an issue date of August 26th please. I do not want to drop an elementary clanger !

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th August, you have until Wednesday 14th September to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

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

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 28th September 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Trainerman

Thank you @KeithP , much appreciated

Trainerman

For background, I am helping in four cases, all having similar details and from the same car park. I am therefore keeping it all on one thread, as I am the contact point in any case. This is the draft defence for the second one up, I would be grateful for the team having a quick check for any dropped clangers. Thanks all

In the County Court

Claim Number :- xxxxxxx

Between

One Parking Solution Ltd

(Claimant)

and

xxxxxxxxxxx

(Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The entire premise for these charges is false. The site concerned is one where local residents have established rights Further, it is a self ticketing site, and the landowners themselves take photos, issue application forms and permits and monitor parking via CCTV. However, they are not registered as Data Controllers with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) as they are obliged to be. It therefore follows that my data was collected and stored unlawfully, and that any usage of it to charge money is similarly unlawful.

2.  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'

3.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

4.  The case concerns a plot of land that has been used by the Defendant and other residents for parking for nearly fifty years. This gives rights under The Prescription Act 1832. The Defendant's family has been parking here for over twenty years, which is a term that gives direct claims under the above act. Further, her residence at the time has a recorded forty year usage which again gives rights under that Act. The defendant's rights transcend any recently erected signs and she needs no authorisation.

5. The land was sold to new owners and they involved One Parking Solution (OPS) to manage parking. The new owners, OPS and the British Parking Association (BPA) were all contacted in writing more than once to attest to the Defendant's (and other residents) acquired right to park and this without need of a permit or permission of any kind.

6. As soon as OPS erected signs around the area, the Defendant (and others) wrote and stated to OPS and BPA that they had no need of permission, no need of a contract and that any contract was specifically and clearly repudiated and not agreed. This was done weeks before the issuing of any Parking Charge. By virtue of this denial, no contract was formed and any remedy would have been under the tort of trespass. It must be emphasised that this was no gimmicky attempt to avoid a charge after the event, but an attempt well in advance of any ticket being issued to inform of the Defendant's rights and specific intent to never form any contract.

7. In the alternative, the signage is of forbidding nature and therefore faulty and incapable of forming a contract. It forbids parking by 'non authorised' vehicles, and it is not possible to contract to do something that is forbidden. Further, the signage on the site is inconsistant and confusing, mixing OPS signs with clear “No Parking” signs, and again, one cannot form a contract with a “No Parking” sign.

8. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.

etc

Grizebeck

@Trainerman
I like that defence

Fruitcake

That's very good.

One very minor punctuation error in para 1. A full stop is needed at the end of the second sentence, before the word "Further".

1. The entire premise for these charges is false. The site concerned is one where local residents have established rights Further ... 

Trainerman

>slaps self on forehead<. Thanks @Fruitcake. I am usually so tight on such things. Must give myself 100 lines ......

Not_A_Hope

Minor typo in para 7. Inconsistant should be inconsistent.

Trainerman

Thanks @Not_A_Hope. Make that 200 lines ......