Equality Act and Private Land Parking issues

ally50

24 Feb 2024
YESKeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your latest Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

24 Feb 2024
Yes
12/03/2024

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th March 2024 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

ally50

Your comments on my defence is very much appreciated.

DEFENCE

1.The Parking Charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was 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 that this Claimant has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. Cause of action estoppel has arisen; the same parties involved in the same subject matter previously. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court to strike out the claim for abuse of process on the basis of Henderson v Henderson under CPR 24. This claim could have been brought in earlier proceedings dated ….. (claim no:....xxx....)

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3.The facts in this defence come from Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source because the court process is outside of their life experience. 

4. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant had the right to park nearby home without conditions under easement  granted in a Tenancy Agreement at the property. Under this Tenancy the Defendant’s contractual rights and obligations are with the landlord and no other party. 

5.The PCN issued on 09/06/2022 and 11/07/2022; the Defendant has parked nearby home due underground car park has been jet washed. All residents  asked to empty the car park and until their designated parking bay become available. Therefore the defendant has parked, at the space outside of their residence in line with their Tenancy Agreement (TA), and due to their disabilities. 

6. Above mentioned PCNs issued at a residential site where the Defendant has a TA that allows for parking ‘nearby home’ relying on ‘primacy of contract’ that a contract (TA) can not be altered by one party without permission of other. There are no terms within TA requiring tenants/residents to pay parking charges to third parties, such as the Claimant. Therefore, the vehicle in question clearly was ‘authorised’ as per TA and that parking charges can not be forced on the Defendant. 

7. Moreover, this is a waste of court’s time and the Defendant, and undue stress for the Defendant as there is a court order allowed primacy of contract on favour of the Defendant, the claim number is ....xxx......

8. The PCN issued on 02/11/2022; the Defendant has stopped outside of school to pick up his child from Nursery. There was signage and information at the area allowing for drop off and pick up. Parking has not occurred but only stopping for pick up. 

9. Again, the same parties involved in the same subject matter previously. It should have been brought in earlier proceedings. Therefore, on the basis of Henderson v Henderson the court is invited to strike out this case as this is an anti social behaviour by the Claimant. 

10. Moreover, prior above date the claimant has issued a penalty charge unlawfully whilst the Defendant stopped on double yellow line. the officer told the defendant that is not allowed to stop on double yellow line even if you are a blue badge holder. This has caused confusing to the Defendant as such the Defendant used to stop on double yellow lines to pick up his child. Because of this penalty charge and misinformation from the parking officer the Defendant avoid to stop on double yellow lines meaning indirectly forced  to stop elsewhere. 

11. PCN issued on 08/08/23; the Defendant did not receive any penalty charge notice.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

12. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

13. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

...... And the rest of Template Defence shared by Coupon-mad

I am going to email this to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk ?

Many thanks

Le_Kirk

ally50 said:

I am going to email this to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk ?

That is the new e-mail address, correct.

Coupon-mad

That first para isn't from the current Template Defence.

ally50

Coupon-mad said:

That first para isn't from the current Template Defence.

yes, I thought the first part must be from our own words

Should I replace the 1st para and add paras 2,3,4 too?


1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC’).

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

4. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

No because you are meant to be copying the alternative (poorly pleaded POC cases ) hharry100 version.

Literally copying it then adding the template bottom section, renumbered. I don't understand why so many people keep changing it somehow, or trying to mash up a mixture of two defences.

ally50

Hi everyone, 

I have received another claim form. it is claimed 2 parking charges which I don't know about at all ! I did not receive  anything and I did not parked anywhere  restricted. 
Please I will appreciate your assistance how am I supposed to defence because I do not know what these charges are?

Many thanks

ally50

Claim issue date is 03/05/2024

KeithP

ally50 said:

Hi everyone, 

I have received another claim form. it is claimed 2 parking charges which I don't know about at all ! I did not receive  anything and I did not parked anywhere  restricted. 
Please I will appreciate your assistance how am I supposed to defence because I do not know what these charges are?

Many thanks

ally50 said:

Claim issue date is 03/05/2024

It looks like these posts relate to an entirely separate parking incident.

It would be best if you were to start a new thread about this new incident and then delete these posts from this thread.