Badly marked parking bays in a roadway

Umkomaas

On a very quick skim, leave out para 8.  The on site signage will have covered the 'agreement'. 

The past history of UKPC being temporarily banned from DVLA access is irrelevant and the judge will show no interest unless it specifically pertains to your case. You are on very thin ice accusing them of 'fraud' in your Defence under a signed Statement of Truth. 

9. In the Claimant's "POPLA DOCUMENT PACK", a photograph shows a sign on the fence in front of the said parking location that reads "STRICTLY NO PARKING IN FRONT OF THE GATES (sic). ACCESS REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES.". This sign was not   No sign was present at the time of parking as it had previously fallen off the fence and was face down, overgrown by vegetation. Over a year later, the sign had still not been replaced.

Others might contribute later. But DO NOT wait around too long and risk missing that deadline for submission. 

RedDragonHpc

Thanks Umkomass. I will probably submit my defence about 2pm.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 7-11 which add nothing to the defence.

RedDragonHpc

@Coupon-mad - GULP! I see what you mean. What's said in para 7 is already covered in 3.

In someone else's thread, there was advice to add 10. I think I feel happier leaving 10 & 11 out.

Thanks

RedDragonHpc

Correction to sentence 1, para 4:

4. Apart from the car parks allocated to each building, this business park has no common-use car park. The free parking bays are all in roadways and are indicated by gaps in the double yellow lines but without any additional road markings. Another Claimant's employee confirmed that the absence of yellow lines does define the free parking bays.

Le_Kirk

Way too long for a defence, do what @Coupon-mad advises and save the story for the witness statement later in the process.

RedDragonHpc

Submitted & Acknowledged.

Thanks everyone for your invaluable help.

Coupon-mad

RedDragonHpc said:

Submitted & Acknowledged.

Thanks everyone for your invaluable help.

OK. That is step one.

There's more, including your DQ, a tedious standard letter from the other side's solicitors and of course your WS & evidence (later)..

...and taking part in the Government's Public Consultation when it opens.  We sincerely hope that you are au fait with the need to respond to the final Public Consultation?

Please don't leave us while it's quiet on your case.

We need to ram the nail in the coffin of the false £60 or £70 'admin fee' add-on, that actually funds the court claim and toxic CCJ culture, as well as the DRA and roboclaim 'legals' gaslighting of people.

Please come back here when it opens, and you can make sure you don't miss the Consultation:

If you are not a regular reader, to be alerted you'll need to bookmark the thread by MSE_JC at the top of the forum and enable (on your profile) email alerts for bookmarked threads.

Then join us when the Consultation opens.  Should be within weeks, hopefully.

RedDragonHpc

Thank you @Coupon-mad

I am grateful and will be pleased to contribute when the Consultation opens.

B789

@RedDragonHpc keeps shooting themselves in the foot by leaving these important steps to the last minute. I believe that they have now submitted their defence but as I'm currently 6 time zones west of you, my input/observations are probably too late.

The PoC as shown is particularly flawed and the below defence, suitably rewritten by @Coupon-mad should have been included before submission:

• 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”.

• 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 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; or (c) the alleged loss
  
• 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.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim with this many allegations requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3
• 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.'"
• 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.
• 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 respectfully invited to strike this claim out.