Small claim advice needed

jay2896

Thanks, I've removed them now. 

I know its hard to say but do you think this defence is strong enough? Lots of the examples on here seem to be much longer.

Coupon-mad

Have you removed anything from the template defence?  If not, then that plus your first few points is normal (and long!).

jay2896

Hi, 
no haven’t removed anything. That’s perfect that’s. I will get it submitted in the coming days and then start on the next jobs. 

Thank you 

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think you need 3 or 4 because you've covered that in #7.

I think you can combine 5 & 6 as they are essentially saying the same thing and make the same point.

jay2896

Again thanks for feedback. I think this is my final adjustments as I need to get it submitted in the coming days. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant entered the car park after 19:30 in the month of October. This was after sunset. The signage located on the gateway to the compound is not lit or of adequate size and covered by foliage making it difficult to see and read. Therefore, the defendant denies entering a contract with the Claimant. On revisiting the site it can be seen that the signage states a charge of £100 not £160 can be applied.

4. On the date in question the defendant was visiting the offices of XXXXXX. The defendant was given permission to park in the car park by XXXXXX and was provided with a valid parking permit which was displayed in the window of the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

You could add a sentence at the end there, denying that any 'relevant obligation or relevant contract' was breached and putting the Claimant to strict proof.

jay2896

Thanks, I'm going to send it off tomorrow as advised. 

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 and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3. The defendant entered the car park after 19:30 in the month of October. This was after sunset. The signage located on the gateway to the compound is not lit or of adequate size and covered by foliage making it difficult to see and read. Therefore, the defendant denies entering a contract with the Claimant. On revisiting the site it can be seen that the signage states a charge of £100 not £160 can be applied.

4. On the date in question the defendant was visiting the offices of XXXXXX. The defendant was given permission to park in the car park by XXXXXX and was provided with a valid parking permit which was displayed in the window of the vehicle. Therefore, the defendant denies that any relevant obligation or relevant contract was breached and put the claimant to strict proof.

Coupon-mad

Puts, not 'put' but yep, all good.

jay2896

Thanks. I’m sure I remember seeing somewhere on here but can’t find it now stating that the defence needs to be in a particular font and size. Is that correct? 

Redx

It's in the Bargepole guide , linked in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum in announcements , second post

Bear in mind that email is normally used for everything , post pandemic , so your pdf will be attached to an email