Help Needed! Please can I get some feedback on my defence.

Coupon-mad

They never have any evidence.

Skysurfer69

Coupon-mad said:

They never have any evidence.

So then clearly my only defence is that I never left the site. Seems easy enough....

Coupon-mad

Skysurfer69 said:

Coupon-mad said:

They never have any evidence.

So then clearly my only defence is that I never left the site. Seems easy enough....

No. You have all the stuff in the Template Defence.  There are several other points in it.

Skysurfer69

Coupon-mad said:

No. You have all the stuff in the Template Defence.  There are several other points in it.

Man, I'm really struggling with this, so please bear with me. the template defence requires me to fill in parts 2 & 3 right? I'm not sure what the other points are. Can you give me a nudge in the right direction please? Sorry to be a pain.

Trainerman

Yes, you fill in the parts that are about your particular case in paras 2 and 3, ( and more if needed, then renumber all) The rest of the template then covers such as poor/unreadable signage and the false add on charges. Those points need to stay there.

Le_Kirk

Paragraphs 1 & 4 to end are to be used without change, you just put why you refute the POC on the claim form. If, for example, the POC states you didn't pay then you state you did and explain how you can prove it it. If they claim an overstay, you explain that you didn't and anyway point out the rubbish signs. Read a few defences that other posters have written.

Skysurfer69

Le_Kirk said:

Paragraphs 1 & 4 to end are to be used without change, you just put why you refute the POC on the claim form. If, for example, the POC states you didn't pay then you state you did and explain how you can prove it it. If they claim an overstay, you explain that you didn't and anyway point out the rubbish signs. Read a few defences that other posters have written.

Thanks. As I said earlier though, the only thing they stated is that I left the site. There is no need to pay for parking if you aren't leaving the site, there are no ticket machines for that matter.

I can say that I never left the site in my defence but I can't provide documented evidence that I didn't.

I'm feeling pretty defeated here.

Coupon-mad

Really? Defeated?

But you don't have to prove anything.

The burden is on the Claimant to prove it!  Come on, this one is going to be one of the easiest to defend.

Show us the Particulars of Claim.

Skysurfer69

Particulars of Claim (hope an image is okay...)



I feel I should point out here too, that the PCN jumped from an initial £100 to their claimed £160.

Coupon-mad

Just put in 2 that you were the registered keeper but given the event is over 5 years ago, the identity of the driver is not known and has not been established by any evidence photos, and nor has any breach.

In para 3 state that this location is recognised as a local retail park but the Defendant is not able to confirm or deny parking there.  No breach is stated on the Particulars, which are embarrassing.

DO NOT TALK ABOUT LEAVING THE SITE OR NOT.

Just add this - below - and re-number the rest of the template defence (not removing anything from the Template Defence - it will end up with thirty-something paragraphs):

4. The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; (c) the alleged loss or overriding legitimate interest supporting the three figure sum claimed; or (d) the specifics of the 'relevant contract or obligation' relied upon and whether the Claimant is holding the Defendant liable on an unsafe presumption that the Defendant was the driver over 5 years ago (no evidence has been supplied) or as registered keeper (this is not an automatic right).

5.   The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.  The Particulars 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”.

6.   The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. In the opinion of the Defendant, it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matter within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied.

7.   In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbent upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3

8.   The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

9. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

10.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is invited to strike this claim out.