County court business centre claim form from Uk parking control limited

Coupon-mad

I'd change the numbers to ordinary numbering.  And this word is wring:

'Precedence'.

No it doesn't set a precedent.  An Appeal case is persuasive.

ox141jf

Chance prcedence to persuasive?

Le_Kirk

I would follow the advice of @Coupon-mad to use simple numbering, also change the order, making Jopson the first point and combining the signage points into one.  Check that you do not duplicate the signage points already in the template.  Look out for this (courtesy of @1505grandad who first pointed it out): -

7.  The Claimant ..............  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event

..... and change #5 to the correct number after you have renumbered your whole defence.

ox141jf

2. Persuasive argument set by the successful JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J Appeal court case on the 29th June 2016 Set forward that loading and unloading is not parking, the most relevant paragraphs of the transcript from this case being 19, 20 and 21.

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

4. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have parked at the nearby park and ride. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

5.  The signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

 

6. The property has been boarded up, closed and derelict since prior to 2012, UKPC has declined to provide proof that they had authority or charge to manage the parking area outside the abandoned property.

7.   The Defendant denies accepting any contract with the Claimant. The Claimant has no right to harass the Defendant with demands for payment and threats of legal action.

8. The Defendant avers that the abandoned site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

9. Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. The Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves.  Meaning at most, the driver is guilty of trespass which is strictly only actionable only by the Landowner, not this Claimant.

Coupon-mad

Remove 'parked' in #4 and replace with 'briefly stopped to load pre-arranged items (boxes?  Heavy files? Bags of what?) from xxxxx'

Remove this from the first point as you are not attaching anything yet:

, the most relevant paragraphs of the transcript from this case being 19, 20 and 21.

Instead put:

The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence.

1505grandad

Also:-

"2. Persuasive argument set by the successful JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-(2906J) Appeal court case on the 29th June 2016"

Probably being pendantic but is it not usual to include the actual "case number" (here). 

Fruitcake

I would make this paragraph 2, as it already is in the template. You want to deny liability before you state why you are not liable.

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

I suggest you move the reference to the Jopson case further down and remove the reference to the location that items were being collected from. It makes more sense for it to come after the statement that the defendant was loading, and reword it to something like this.

In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number XXXX, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts.

This should be followed by Coupon-mad's comment about providing the transcript later

As an aside, I was under the impression the case Jopson case number was 9GF0A9E, not 2906J, but I have been wrong before so seek confirmation before including it.

Are you sure the site was boarded up prior to 2012? The GSV images I posted appear to show two workers on break by the loading dock in 2016, with cars in the car park. 

At paragraph 6 you could instead state something along the lines that the site appears to have been in use in 2016 but appears derelict in 2017 at the time of the alleged event, and was a building site for a new development in 2018.

You could then say that this implies the land had been sold for development in 2017, and the claimant had no standing to issue charges at the time of the alleged event. You should then put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

Also:-

"2. Persuasive argument set by the successful JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-(2906J) Appeal court case on the 29th June 2016"

Probably being pendantic but is it not usual to include the actual "case number" (here). 

Good spot!  That is not the case number.

ox141jf

@Fruitcake those were not workers, but rather it was a model and photographer using the abandoned property.

ox141jf

Changes made

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

3. In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number 9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence.

4. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

5.  The signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

6. The property has been boarded up, closed and derelict since prior to 2012, UKPC has declined to provide proof that they had authority or charge to manage the parking area outside the abandoned property.

7.   The Defendant denies accepting any contract with the Claimant. The Claimant has no right to harass the Defendant with demands for payment and threats of legal action.

8. The Defendant avers that the abandoned site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

9. Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. The Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves.  Meaning at most, the driver is guilty of trespass which is strictly only actionable only by the Landowner, not this Claimant.