Civil Enforcement Limited taking Defendant to County Court Business Centre Sep 2022

Yanness

Coupon-mad said:

Yanness said:

Hi everyone,

Continuing from the keeper's post above, is it advised to contact the PPC and ask them to drop the case as not the fault of the keeper but the manager?

Is it advised to contact the manager to provide a letter telling the keeper has tried to resolved the issue through him/her? Is it going to matter to the judge?

No, because they won't.

So what could I base my defence on?
Signs not visible?
Contract not being clear enough?

Or what else?

Because for the keeper that's clearly the fault of the manager... And that's what the keeper's defence was going to be based on. Unless the judge will disregard this fact. 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

I wasn't saying that's not a valid part of defence for you to slot into our Template Defence (see Announcement thread of the same name).

I was answering this question only:

"is it advised to contact the PPC and ask them to drop the case as not the fault of the keeper but the manager? "

Yanness

Hi guys,

Thank you again for you invaluable help as always.

Here is my defence.

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant went shopping at the Masala Bazaar grocery store in Bristol. A few days later, the Defendant received a parking notice letter notifying of a money claim for illegal parking due to a supposed contract. The Defendant spoke to the landowner i.e., the manager of the shop about the claim and provided a copy as requested in order to demand a cancellation of the claim. The landowner advised the Defendant not to worry about the claim anymore which advice has been followed. The landowner notified the Claimant several times that it does not wish the charge to be enforced up on the Defendant. Therefore, the actual wording of the supposed contract is key to this claim whether the Claimant has the right to ignore the landowner wishes. But the Claimant has decided to continue the claim against the wishes of the landowner.

If the charge is believed to be a breach of contract it must therefore be a genuine pre-estimate of a loss for the Claimant. But the Claimant has not suffered any loss as the landowner does not require a payment to park at the location. Moreover, the landowner has requested a cancellation of the charge. It is therefore an unenforceable penalty. If the charge is a contractual charge by any means, then it is a disguised penalty and therefore unenforceable.

The location has inadequate signs which does not constitute a contract by any means. For the signage to create a contract it must be clearly visible, sufficiently distributed and clearly worded. It is accepted that these circumstances can create a contract but it is denied that this happened in this case. The small and short description is merely an "invitations to treat" and could only be deemed to be accepted as a contract when the Defendant agreed to it. 
This supports a legal principle in that when there is an unsigned agreement and an onerous clause then this clause must be bought to the attention of the trader. Indeed, this approach is inserted into the BPA Code of Practice where 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory. The Defendant believes that the signs used by the Claimant do not clearly mention the ‘onerous’ clause of the charge and contractual terms in accordance with this trite of law because it is hidden in smaller print underneath far larger lettering used to state that “parking is for valid permit holders only”.

Coupon-mad

Remove all of this (no more & no less):

"about the claim and provided a copy as requested in order to demand a cancellation of the claim. The landowner advised the Defendant not to worry about the claim anymore which advice has been followed."

"If the charge is believed to be a breach of contract it must therefore be a genuine pre-estimate of a loss for the Claimant. But the Claimant has not suffered any loss as the landowner does not require a payment to park at the location. Moreover, the landowner has requested a cancellation of the charge. It is therefore an unenforceable penalty. If the charge is a contractual charge by any means, then it is a disguised penalty and therefore unenforceable."

"The small and short description is merely an "invitations to treat" and could only be deemed to be accepted as a contract when the Defendant agreed to it. 
This supports a legal principle in that when there is an unsigned agreement and an onerous clause then this clause must be bought to the attention of the trader. Indeed, this approach is inserted into the BPA Code of Practice where 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory. The Defendant believes that the signs used by the Claimant do not clearly mention the ‘onerous’ clause of the charge and contractual terms in accordance with this trite of law because it is hidden in smaller print underneath far larger lettering used to state that “parking is for valid permit holders only”."

Yanness

A revised version as advised by Coupon-mad.

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant went shopping at the Masala Bazaar grocery store in Bristol. A few days later, the Defendant received a parking notice (letter notifying of a money claim for illegal parking due to a supposed contract - to be removed as advised by Coupon-mad below). The Defendant spoke to the landowner i.e., the manager of the shop. The landowner notified the Claimant several times that it does not wish the charge to be enforced up on the Defendant. Therefore, the actual wording of the supposed contract is key to this claim whether the Claimant has the right to ignore the landowner wishes. But the Claimant has decided to continue the claim against the wishes of the landowner.

The location has inadequate signs which does not constitute a contract by any means. For the signage to create a contract it must be clearly visible, sufficiently distributed and clearly worded. It is accepted that these circumstances can create a contract but it is denied that this happened in this case.

Coupon-mad

Also remove this:

"letter notifying of a money claim for illegal parking due to a supposed contract."

Yanness

Coupon-mad said:

Also remove this:

"letter notifying of a money claim for illegal parking due to a supposed contract."

OK it will be removed as advised.

Le_Kirk

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

Better as: -

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

Yanness

The defence letter was sent and the acknowledgement from CCBC has been received.

Thanks guys

Ed2022

I would complain to the owner and to be honest, I would approach the local media too. Last think you need while shopping is this scam to enter your number plate. I get a sense this is another revenue stream for the landowners or shops.