County Court Claim - leaving site

Sea_Turtle

thank you! Yes I have all of that and then the remaining template from the newbies thread which starts with paragragh:

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

and mentions POFA and CRA breaches, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms), Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR, conclusion and statement of truth. 

Or should I save the above for the defence if they return the POC?

Thanks again for all your help! 

 

Le_Kirk

Not sure what you mean by "if they return the POC"!  You have a N1 claim form and on that will be the POC; are you expecting the claimant to send further/better details?  You can only file one defence, don't miss your deadline of March 22nd.

Coupon-mad

Put the whole lot in the defence, like @Johny86 did.  Your defence is not asking for better POC.  It's asking the court to consider a strike out.

Sea_Turtle

Ok great thank you both! Yes I think I was thinking if I said the poc weren’t clear they would have to send more.

I will add in all the info to my defence and send next week.

thanks again for your help!

Sea_Turtle

I think I have finalised the below, based on the templates - the rest I have not changed.

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

3. The Defendant visited the RETAIL PARK during the period of parking 4 years ago.  

4. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. The Defendant has had to guess the term the Claimant alleges was breached; in a free retail car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay, failure to validate the VRM at the till or alleged failure of a purported obligation to display a Blue Badge.  The POC fails to clarify the breach.  Based on several blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown a photo of the Defendants car parked within the lines of a bay 15 minutes apart.  There is a photograph of a sign located at the retail park included however the terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC.

5. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant breached the Ts of C during the period of parking 4 years ago. The Claimant is put to strict proof. It is also the Defendant’s understanding that parking is free for all visitors of the complex for up to three hours, and there are no Pay and Display machines surrounding the parking bays. It has been nearly four years since the alleged breach of terms and the Defendant is unable to recall the exact details of the day. The Defendant was shocked to have received notice of a P.C.N due to the car park not being chargeable. The Claimant has provided no evidence of a breach. The Defendant notes that the operator’s signs, are not transparent in their Terms of Contract. There is no clear site boundary map displayed or, site description printed to clearly outline a site boundary. The area controlled by the Claimant is an open access area with multiple restaurants and entertainment facilities and, there is no barrier or payment upon the two entry ways. There is no clear signage to demonstrate the end of the site and, the signage that is in place is difficult to read due to the small print and location of the signs.

thanks for all your help! Will file this next week as per the instructions on the newbies thread. 

95Rollers

Grizebeck said:

Sea_Turtle said:

95Rollers said:

Sea_Turtle said:

95Rollers said:

Have you sent UKPC a SAR yet?

When you do you SAR ask them for their CCTV, their Ticketer's witness statement including times and descriptions of the "driver" leaving site and his records of their attempts to "mitigate loss" by stopping or advising them etc - issuing sneaky PCNs won't help the centre.

Also as pointed out above- could it be this fake PCN was issued by one of their former non-disciplined Rogue employees!?! Ask can they assure this one is "genuine" when countless others were found to be falsified. Ask what their "quality control" and "compliance" measures around this area of contention are.

THEY WON'T HAVE any of this basic evidence which is why you must ask for it on a SAR so you have it in black and white should these clowns ever push for court. There is no lawful purpose to use CCTV for this reason even if they did have it. Again they are total chancers who are hoping people will get frightened, be unaware of their rights and then cave in and pay!

I have done my SAR and received it back with just pictures of my car about 15 mins apart. I will email them back and ask for the above too! Thanks for your help!

Make sure you - 2 pics of a car entering and leaving a carpark doesn't back up their claim of "driver leaving site". Ask them specifically for strict proof, the "evidence" they have of this and their lawful right to monitor people movements etc.  Send another SAR with all these questions in Bulletpoints! If the matter goes to court request the parking operative to be called as a witness!

Hiya, thanks for your reply on this. I sent a SAR back asking for the above and they have just replied saying they have sent everything they hold for me which was the two pictures of my car, a blurry picture of the sign from the car park and the PCN but, nothing else. 

Thats fine. Case wont end up at a hearing

Include the SAR emails in your WS. This is actual confirmation they have ZERO evidence to back up their false claims.

Coupon-mad

Remove the line about displaying a blue badge if that's irrelevant to your case as you car is not shown in a disabled bay(?).

Remove 5 (except for the first sentence)  You are saying the POC make it impossible to know what the C's case is, so stop talking about site boundaries!

You've not copied all the wording from Johny86's defence through to 11 - you need it all, to provide strong reasons why the claim needs striking out.

Sea_Turtle

Thank you for checking! I have adjusted the below and add the additional, I haven't copied here but have included the remainder of the defence from the Newbies thread also. 

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

3. The Defendant visited the RETAIL PARK during the period of parking 4 years ago.  

4. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. The Defendant has had to guess the term the Claimant alleges was breached; in a free retail car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay, or failure to validate the VRM at the till.  The POC fails to clarify the breach.  Based on several blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown a photo of the Defendants car parked within the lines of a bay 15 minutes apart.  There is a photograph of a sign located at the retail park included however the terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC

5. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant breach the Ts of C during the period of parking 4 years ago. 

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.

Coupon-mad

You have two number fives. Your sentence in your first #5 would read better tacked onto your #3.

Sea_Turtle

Coupon-mad said:

You have two number fives. Your sentence in your first #5 would read better tacked onto your #3.

Oh yes if course I will triple check all the numbers before sending. 

Ok great thank you again for all your help!