UKPC court claim 15 February at 5:51PM edited 16 February at 6:38AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 47 replies 3.1K views

Johny86

Hi everyone 

Please have a look at the defense and let me know if anything needs changing. @Coupon-mad

KeithP

Johny86 said:

Hi everyone 

Please have a look at the defense and let me know if anything needs changing. 

Do we have to read all thirty-seven paragraphs that you have shown us and search for the bits you have changed?

A more focused text for critique would be better.

And by the way, there is no letter 's' in defence.  

Coupon-mad

Remove this because the point is that the POC don't tell you this is the alleged breach, so DON'T mention it!

The onus is on to the claimant to prove the “vehicle owner/driver has left site”. 

Johny86

KeithP said:

Johny86 said:

Hi everyone 

Please have a look at the defense and let me know if anything needs changing. 

Do we have to read all thirty-seven paragraphs that you have shown us and search for the bits you have changed?

A more focused text for critique would be better.

And by the way, there is no letter 's' in defence.  

Paragraph 12 onward is exactly the same as the original defence template. Paragraph 2,3 and 4 is my addition and paragraph 5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 was copied from Naaz616 as suggested by @Coupon-mad

Johny86

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this because the point is that the POC don't tell you this is the alleged breach, so DON'T mention it!

The onus is on to the claimant to prove the “vehicle owner/driver has left site”. 

Ok I will remove this bit then. The parking ticket has mentioned about occupant/vehicle owner/driver has left site hence I put it down @Coupon-mad

Johny86

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. The Driver was a patron at B&M store within the retail park and did shopping there. As the driver was a genuine customer and remained on site throughout their visit.  

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. 

5. The Particulars of Claim ('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”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC 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; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. 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 pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. 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.'" 

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

Please let me know guys if anything changing. Paragraph 12 onward remained the same as template

Le_Kirk

Johny86 said:

3. The Driver was a patron at B&M store within the retail park and did shopping there, As the driver was and therefore a genuine customer and who remained on site throughout their visit.  

Your paragraph 3# does not make sense now - it just stops!  Maybe change as above.

Johny86

Le_Kirk said:

Johny86 said:

3. The Driver was a patron at B&M store within the retail park and did shopping there, As the driver was and therefore a genuine customer and who remained on site throughout their visit.  

Your paragraph 3# does not make sense now - it just stops!  Maybe change as above.

How about the rest of the defence? 

Coupon-mad

Absolutely fine - and most of it is so generic and perfect for all UKPC defendants to copy & adapt, you will see I've been pointing newbies to use your defence as their base!  All UKPC defendants will only need to change para 3 to suit.

Le_Kirk

Johny86 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Johny86 said:

3. The Driver was a patron at B&M store within the retail park and did shopping there, As the driver was and therefore a genuine customer and who remained on site throughout their visit.  

Your paragraph 3# does not make sense now - it just stops!  Maybe change as above.

How about the rest of the defence? 

As @Coupon-mad writes, you can go with it.  If you have been reading other poster's threads (recommended), you will note that she has been pointing posters at your defence!