Court Claim- Defence review

Crazygirl_2

Sorry, i think I was just concerned with the free text I was adding as I was ok with amending the good work You’ve all put into the templates

Coupon-mad

Why add 'and driver' at the end? Reads oddly.

Crazygirl_2

Coupon-mad said:

Don't call them 'fines'.

I assume this is UKPC using DCBLegal.

To paragraph 3, add the quote from the current BPA CoP about extra signs being needed where restrictions change.

Then add paragraphs 5-11 from the defence in the thread by @Johny86 and finally, add the rest of the Template defence 5 onwards (don't bother with 4) and re-number ot all to suit.

Thanks soo much, I have just found the post you have pointed me to and I have added it to my paragraphs. I did wonder about calling them fines so will change that. 

Will grab the CoP wording and add. Really appreciate this.

Crazygirl_2

Coupon-mad said:

Why add 'and driver' at the end? Reads oddly.

That’s what the template advises. It says to edit the paragraph and if you were the driver add ‘and driver’ but realise I should have put that after registered keeper 

KeithP

Crazygirl_2 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why add 'and driver' at the end? Reads oddly.

That’s what the template advises. It says to edit the paragraph and if you were the driver add ‘and driver’

...so that the phrase becomes "...was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle". 

Crazygirl_2

KeithP said:

Crazygirl_2 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why add 'and driver' at the end? Reads oddly.

That’s what the template advises. It says to edit the paragraph and if you were the driver add ‘and driver’

...so that the phrase becomes "...was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle". 

Yes thank you, I realised once I was explaining that I should have added it before ‘of the vehicle’ 🙄 thank you for correcting

Crazygirl_2

Ok so I have updated based on your helpful feedback. Paragraphs 3-5 are my case points, para 6-12 are taken as advised from another thread & para 13 onwards is the original para 5 in the defence template. Of it can have someone cast an eye over to make sure looks ok that would be 👍🏻 

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

3. The Defendant attended a family children’s birthday party at McDonalds Nuneaton on 19thDecember 2021 at 17:35. Due to the time of year the conditions were dark and wintery.  The country had not long come out of an enforced period of lockdown due to COVID -19 and opportunities for connecting with family members were few and far between.  Prior to this time, the location mentioned above had no such restrictions on length of stay on its premises. The Defendant was unaware of there being new parking restrictions as the Claimants signage were not located in a visible location and the car park was inadequately lit for patrons to be able to see them let alone be aware that they had entered into a contract for parking. It states within the ‘BPA AOS Code of Practice’, in paragraph 19.10 that signage should reflect the change in the terms and conditions.

’19.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.’

4. During the Defendants stay there was no visible reference to the changes in parking terms within McDonalds, thus giving the Defendant no opportunity to make an informed decision on length of stay. As previously mentioned, this was a family birthday party and due to restrictions imposed by COVID-19 this was a chance to enjoy the company of family and spend time which was not allowed before said date.

5. The Defendant and other family members were patrons of McDonalds and offered evidence of purchases during the time they were on said premises. Two of the Defendants family members also received parking charges for the same visit and duration however these were successfully appealed with POPLA. This is despite all three appeals using the exact same appeal documentation, albeit car registrations and name of keeper being different.

6.  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”. 

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

8. 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. 

9. 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 

10. 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.'" 

11. 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. 

12. 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. 

13. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated. 

Coupon-mad

That's very good.

Your case will go quietish after the Defence is in (see the Template Defence sticky thread that lists the first 12 steps).

Crazygirl_2

Hi all, I have had my hearing date through. I have adapted one of the WS that you have all suggested to look at. 

I have to submit the WS by end of this week as it says 28 days before. 

The case has been moved to my local county court instead of the Northampton. This might sound obvious but do I send my WS to my local only? Just wanted to check that I didn’t need to do both? Apologies if this is somewhere else I just have missed it 😬

Coupon-mad

Yes, you email it to the local court (NOT the CNBC) AND cc the solicitors for the Claimant.

Please show us your draft. We can help.