Defence help needed please! - County Court Claim Form from Gladstones Solicitors

KevinTurvey

Hello again everyone! - specifically hoping that @Coupon-mad, @Umkomaas and @SJRRJS might be willing to read and provide some feedback on my defence . . .

Huge thanks as ever to anyone that is able to offer any help here - as is the case with most people here I'm sure, going to court is not something we ever/often do and it's all a little overwhelming/scary . . . but I am determined to fight! . . .

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant entered the XXX Street car park noting the ‘Bransby Wilson - Pay and Stay’ signage at the entrance. The Defendant parked, then proceeded to the payment machine and entered registration details – slowly, and having to correct mistakes as the Defendant struggled to see inputs through a heavily damaged screen (pic1).

In a hurry, as only in town to pick up prescription medication for a relative, the Defendant was frustrated to find the payment machine then seemingly stuck in a ‘Contacting Server’ loop with no course of intervention or action possible whilst this continued . . and continued . . and continued.  This cycle persisted for an estimated 8-10 minutes with no indication that the machine was actually in proper, working operation. Pic1 taken at this time in frustration (pic1). Eventually, after an agonising wait and a queue forming at the (single) machine, it allowed coins to be entered to pay for parking.

A ticket was purchased and placed in the windscreen of the Defendant’s car. Now rushing, the errand in town was completed (now behind schedule and having to suffer additional queueing for the medical prescription as the parking machine ‘Contacting Server’ delay caused the time to now approach 1.30pm, lunch-time for many in-town workers).

Errands complete, the Defendant returned to the car and exited the car park in a hurry, with further appointments to meet that day.

On 7th September a Parking Charge Notice was received from ‘Minster Baywatch Ltd’ regarding an alleged overstay of 25.5 minutes in the XXX Street car park on the day and during the sequence of events described above. The Defendant has no knowledge of ‘Minster Baywatch Ltd’ and has since returned to the car park in an attempt to discover who ‘Minster Baywatch Ltd’ are and whether the car park is managed by them, or ‘Bransby Wilson’ as displayed (signage Pic2).

Upon the return visit to the site, the Defendant noted that the car park is indeed managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, as shown on the signage at the site. At no point has the defendant had any contact from or with BW Parking Solutions. The defendant believes that the Claimant, Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a contract offered by them, that was prominently displayed so that it was bound to be seen, as well as a chain of authority from the landowner allowing Minster Baywatch to sue in their own name despite the disclosed principal on the signage.

Also on the return visit (on foot only), it is noted that a small sign IS evident in the car park that does mention Minster Baywatch Ltd., but this is not prominent and easily obscured by parked vehicles and is certainly not visible in any detail whilst driving (pic3). No mention is made of Minster Baywatch at the payment machine itself, and Bransby Wilson are the company proffered at this point to be ‘managers’ of the car park.

In addition to the practical struggles created by a damaged and ineffective payment machine, from the signage shown in pic2 it is clear that the contractual licence is offered by, and the site maintained by, a different limited company called Bransby Wilson, who are the disclosed principal. 

I believe it is fatal to their claim, that the Claimant made no offer of a contract to me, at all. I take the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and myself.  I had never heard of Minster Baywatch until the postal notice arrived weeks later.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge . . . etc. 

Coupon-mad

Almost all off that draft reads like a Witness Statement, and no photos go with a defence. Evidence stage is later.

You just need one paragraph 3 to say concisely that the machine was malfunctioning and caused a delay.  But that the signage identified Bransby Wilson Ltd (not the Claimant) so no contractual relationship existed with the Claimant, who have no standing to sue in their own name.

If this claim is filed by DCBLegal then you could add the additional paras 4 onwards, seen in the defence by @Johny86 about the woefully inadequate particulars.

KevinTurvey

Ok, thanks @Coupon-mad . . . is this better . . . 

3. The payment machine at the XXX Street car park was found to be damaged and therefore difficult and very slow/troublesome to use (cracked screen making inputs hard to read) and also seemed to be suffering network connectivity issues as an unacceptable delay of 8-10 minutes was experienced at stage 2/3 of the payment process, whilst it continually attempted a ‘Connecting to Server’ process.

In addition to the practical struggles created by a damaged and ineffective payment machine, from the signage displayed at the site, it is clear that the contractual licence is offered by, and the site maintained by, a different limited company called Bransby Wilson, who are the disclosed principal, not the Claimant. I believe therefore, that it is fatal to their claim, that the Claimant made no offer of a contract to me, at all. I take the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and myself.  I had never heard of Minster Baywatch until the postal notice arrived weeks later.

The claim is filed by Gladstones Solicitors, not DCBLegal, but they have been very poor overall (Subject Access Request communications sent addressed to wrong person, and large redacted parts of our email conversations included). Is that worth mentioning eventually/in addition, since it's not Gladstones that are the claimant in the first instance?!

Coupon-mad

You need to change "I" and 'myself' to "the Defendant' as you are at defence stage.  And ALL paragraphs need a number.

That's much better now but don't try to quantify the buffering delay (8-10 minutes doesn't assist your case, if the overstay was 25!).

You can mention the wrong data issue at WS stage.

KevinTurvey

That's great advice - thanks so much (again!).

One more time, with feeling . . .

3. The payment machine at the XXX Street car park was found to be damaged and therefore difficult and very slow/troublesome to use (cracked screen making inputs hard to read) and also seemed to be suffering network connectivity issues as a significant delay was experienced at stage 2-3 of the payment process, whilst it seemingly continually attempted a ‘Connecting to Server’ process.

In addition to the practical struggles created by a damaged and ineffective payment machine, from the signage displayed at the site, it is clear that the contractual licence is offered by, and the site maintained by, a different limited company called Bransby Wilson, who are the disclosed principal, not the Claimant. The Defendant believes therefore, that it is fatal to their claim, that the Claimant made no offer of a contract to the Defendant at all. The Defendant takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the Defendant.  The Defendant had never heard of Minster Baywatch until the postal notice arrived weeks later.


Would you now call this 'done' ?? . . . decent?? . . . and I also need to include ALL the extra para's from the template, yes?? . . . and send by email during work hours (probably tomorrow), and ensure I get a receipt? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, once you add another paragraph number!

KevinTurvey

Doh! - 

Thanks!

KevinTurvey

Hello again - time has passed and I now have a court hearing date (Jan 2024). 

In the letter received, the judge has also offered a telephone 'mediation' meeting. I've searched this forum for specific advice as to whether this is a good idea, and mostly hit short one-liners saying 'don't bother' . . . but without any real explanation as to why it's a waste of time?

I'd much rather avoid a court hearing if possible, so . . why would I not attempt a phone mediation?

Thanks in advance as always to those that are able to reply!

Coupon-mad

Show us the Order. If it's a Directions Hearing rather than Mediation, I'd be surprised if you can choose.

KevinTurvey

Ah, just noticed that the time to choose the 'mediation' option is now lapsed, so this is moot. Looks like I'm headed to court.

Will post defence here when prepared, and hopefully garner some advice.

Thanks for responding regardless