Struggling with templates for defence of claim for parking in a disabled space

Coupon-mad

jordylass said:

Thanks, I'd followed the guides up to this point, but as I had paid for my parking space I got a bit confused, but as their claim is that I was in breach of the terms on their signs, 

Same as always. No specific allegation.

This is why you add Johny's extra paragraphs 5-11 into the Template Defence and then adapt 2 and 3 as I explained.

jordylass

using @Johnny86 defence. is this OK for paragraph 2 and 3

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

3. The Driver was a resident in the apartments above the car park. It is necessary to take a ticket and pay for the time parked in order for the barrier to be lifted to depart the car park.

Coupon-mad

Yes but remove "but liability is denied" from para 2 because it's already in para 1.

Then you obviously have to remove Johny's para 4 because that's talking about 'no keeper liability' but you were the driver in your case.

So replace it with:

4.  The parking is shared use (open to the public as well) but in the case of residents, the contract for parking is offered by the freeholder and residents get a discount for monthly use.  The Claimant's due diligence when negotiating at the outset with their Principal (the freeholder or agent) must surely mean that they already know about this difficulty but the Defendant will evidence this arrangement at witness statement stage.  Whilst the parking firm may be able to contract with visitors and the public, it cannot sell licences to park to residents because it doesn't own the land, likely doesn't have that authority and a third party cannot override the existing contract: the resident's agreement with the landowner.  Given that the tenancy already includes parking and there is a disclosed principal known to be offering the parking to the Defendant, this third party is the wrong Claimant. 

jordylass

The tenancy doesn't include parking, residents can get a monthly/yearly parking permit directly from the car parking staff, they are a separate company from the landlords

Coupon-mad

Show us the monthly/annual permit. How many company names are on it?

jordylass

I'm sorry I don't understand. Anyone can use this car park on a PAYG basis, residents of the apartments above can get a monthly or yearly pass with a slight discount direct form the car park be proving residency. I did not have a pass ad was using the car park PAYG

Coupon-mad

Oh OK.  Scratch that then!  What a shame as that was a good defence point for a resident and you mentioned it in an earlier reply.  I was merely going by what you said to us.

OK - so is the parking charge ftom a couple of years ago?  You can use this instead because you CAN'T use Johny86's paragraph 4:


4.  As well as denying that the Claimant is entitled to parking charges, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has incurred any ‘damages’ or ‘debt recovery fees’. Then there is an extortionate attempt to harvest several years’ interest, which must surely be dismissed by the court. Interest is discretionary, not an absolute entitlement and it has been falsely calculated (from day one) on the whole, exaggerated amount which hugely exceeds the parking charge.

4.1.  The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim to interest on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.

4.2.  Further, this Claimant has sat on their hands and unreasonably delayed commencing proceedings, setting themselves up to profit from a hugely exaggerated 'reward' by default, had the Claim gone undefended. As such, the Defendant takes the point that – in the unlikely event that this claim is successful – interest should be disallowed or significantly reduced (per Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd[2007] BLR 452). 

jordylass

yes claim is from 2019

jordylass

Does this work

The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed. The defendant also denies that the claimant has incurred any damages, debt recovery fees, or interest.

The defendant admits that they were the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the material date. However, the defendant denies that they breached any terms of the contract by parking in the car park.

The defendant was a resident in the apartments above the car park. It was necessary to take a ticket and pay for the time parked in order for the barrier to be lifted to depart the car park. The defendant did this and paid the parking charge in full.

The claimant has not provided any evidence to support their claim that the defendant breached any terms of the contract. The claimant has also not provided any evidence to support their claim that the defendant incurred any damages, debt recovery fees, or interest.

The claimant's claim is therefore entirely without merit. The defendant requests that the court dismiss the claim.

In addition, the defendant makes the following points:

1. The claimant has failed to provide adequate particulars of their claim. The particulars of claim are entirely inadequate and fail to provide any detail of the contractual terms relied upon, the specifics of any alleged breach of contract, or how the purported damages arose.

2. The claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 16PD.3. Practice Direction 16PD.3 requires claimants who issue claims via Money Claims Online to provide detailed particulars of their claim within 14 days of issuing the claim. The claimant has not done this.

3. The claimant has claimed interest on the parking charge, damages, and debt recovery fees. However, the claimant has not provided any evidence to support their claim that they are entitled to interest. In fact, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the parking charge, as the parking charge was paid in full. The claimant is also not entitled to interest on the damages, as the damages have not been proven. The claimant is only entitled to interest on the debt recovery fees if they can prove that they incurred those fees in order to recover the parking charge and damages. in the unlikely event that this claim is successful – interest should be disallowed or significantly reduced (per Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd[2007] BLR 452). 

Coupon-mad

Now I'm confused!  That's become muddled.

This bit below isn't true, because the parking charge is not the same thing as the fee/tariff:

"In fact, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the parking charge, as the parking charge was paid in full."

Half of those paragraphs are not numbered and I can't see how these will be your paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 within the rest of the long defence by Johny86