Claim Form for Parking Charge, help!

Coupon-mad

Signs on a building wall are actually LESS obviously about parking, than signs on poles.

Just put ALL your facts into a draft set of added paragraphs (sounds like you need more than just a paragraph 3 of facts, so add more than that, and re-number the template below).

Show us ONLY your paras 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. for critique snd we'll tell you if any of it is too much or needs re-wording.

AffiaAngel

Hi everyone,

I have written my defence taking some wording on other people's defences. I hope it makes sense as I have read a lot to gain some understanding in what I am defending. Would love some feedback on it! Thanks:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The alleged parking location is subject of the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Act 1966 and is covered within the limits of jurisdiction of authority under the Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws 1977. Therefore, the land is not relevant for the purposes of complying within the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The Claimant cannot transfer liability to the Defendant to recover payment as the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Even if the location were relevant land, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of POFA 2012 in a number of respects.

4. Notwithstanding the above comment, the Claimant has already stated that it does not rely on the Keeper provisions of POFA 2012, but only on the presumption that the Keeper is the Driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations and evidence and the Defendant will be in a position to respond only once furnished with same.

5. The Claimant is not the land-owner and does not have the capacity to take legal action on their own behalf unless it has occupational rights over the land in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1.1.

6. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's signs at the location cannot form any contract with the Driver and any breach of terms is also denied.
It is confirmed that the Driver did not see any car park entrance signs upon entry nor any obvious and clear VCS signage with appropriate size of text and contrast of colours to be easily readable within the location at the time of parking. The VCS signage did not state any agreements intended to form within the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Driver and are in breach of its IPC Code of Practice Part E Schedule 1.
The Supreme Court has made clear that, in order to recover a penalty, signs must be clear and in compliance within its Code of Practice. The Claimant fails in both respects.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except you haven't said whether you are denying being the driver, which could tie you up in knots at the hearing if you were and your defence refrained from mentioning it.  If you were not, say so!

AffiaAngel

I thought I'm meant to refrain from mentioning who the driver is as they cannot prove who it was and to word it from the point of view of the registered keeper and to defend as keeper? And to only mention if I was asked in court...? Or have I gotten this completely wrong? (Or is it to do with my wording on my defence?) Thanks!

Coupon-mad

That is true to an extent...but if you know you were the driver it is a more honest position (preferred by Judges) to drop the POFA argument and defend as driver.

It is a difficult decision because this doesn't appear to be relevant land, so your defence is correct.

Your choice.

AffiaAngel

I don't know what to do now! Do you think my defence is adequate if I remove the POFA arguement?

Le_Kirk

AffiaAngel said:

I don't know what to do now! Do you think my defence is adequate if I remove the POFA argument?

What will you say if the judge asks you outright "were you the driver?"

AffiaAngel

Le_Kirk said:

AffiaAngel said:

I don't know what to do now! Do you think my defence is adequate if I remove the POFA argument?

What will you say if the judge asks you outright "were you the driver?"

Of course I wouldn't lie. I was just confused by things I've read and I thought I just needed to write my defence without stating who the driver was as they cannot actually prove who it was so can only attempt to charge the driver but the letters are charging the keeper. I hope that makes sense? 

Coupon-mad

Yes but it's your choice. We've explained the difficulty you might come up against later.

What's your main defence if you write it as admitted driver instead?  Show us a draft like that.

AffiaAngel

Here is my main defence if I was admitted as driver:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper & driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's signs at the location cannot form any contract with the Driver and any breach of terms is also denied.
It is confirmed that the Driver did not see any car park entrance signs upon entry nor any obvious and clear VCS signage with appropriate size of text and contrast of colours to be easily readable within the location at the time of parking. The VCS signage did not state any agreements intended to form within the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Driver and are in breach of its IPC Code of Practice Part E Schedule 1.
The Supreme Court has made clear that, in order to recover a penalty, signs must be clear and in compliance within its Code of Practice. The Claimant fails in both respects.

4. The Claimant is not the land-owner and does not have the capacity to take legal action on their own behalf unless it has occupational rights over the land in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1.1.

Is that enough? I'm really unsure what else to put otherwise... I'm feeling like this just won't be enough!