Parking Charge Court Claim Form - Need Urgent Help Please!!

Coupon-mad

You don't need "but liability is denied" in paragraph 2 because it's already said in para 1 of that version.

You can remove para 12 (not needed in your case).

You are of course (because the Template Defence explains this) meant to add 'and driver' after 'registered keeper' in para 2.

NEVER use the word 'fraudulent' in a defence or as an accusation at any point.  Drop that word. And you don't attach evidence at this early stage.

Your defence is looking good but DO NOT SUBMIT IT EARLY. Not this week.

B789

Don't forget, you are only answering the woefully inadequate particulars of claim. Don't add anything that they haven't alleged. By doing so, you are making their case for them. The onus is on the claimant to prove their case. Not for you to do it for them.

Le_Kirk

UNITED92 said:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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.     On 27th February 2022, the Defendant visited [place where I parked] to do some shopping at the local shops to the car park. The defendant purchased and displayed a paper ticket, of which there is record (see evidence below) allowing them to park until 17:58. The defendant believed the car park payment end time was 18:00 and paid accordingly.

You are doing their job for them, just keep it simple. Evidence does not go with a defence.

UNITED92

Hi All - thanks again for the guidance/info. I've taken your advice and updated the Defence. Noted on evidence and not making their case for them. As I said this is all new to me - have never been anywhere near our legal system so am in unfamiliar territory - hopefully I don't butcher it and it's a good learning curve. 

Some further questions:

• Why should I not submit the response this week? The deadline is fast approaching and I don't want to miss it. It's 31st July I believe?
• Have included all the other headings within the Defence (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) - are all these necessary, conscious there's a lot of text?

Updated Defence as per guidance...

---

1.     The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.     On 27th February 2022, the Defendant visited [place where I parked] to do some shopping at the local shops to the car park. The Defendant purchased and displayed a paper ticket.

4.     The Defendant has been cautious to not respond to the Claimant, given their threatening communication, online profile and lack of information/validity to the Claim. The Claim is vague and there is no mention of overstay or underpayment in the particulars of the Claim. The Defendant is not liable for these inflated charges and has paid and displayed a parking ticket.

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. 

12.  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.  Prior to this - and 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 about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however, the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.   

---

B789

You have until 4pm on 31st of July. You can submit your defence as late as 15:59 by email. It is sent as a pdf attachment by email. Give yourself an extra few minutes to make sure you receive the auto response.

KeithP

I would remove the first sentence of your paragraph 4.
I don't believe it helps you at all, and some judges will be disappointed with someone who does not respond.

Coupon-mad

UNITED92 said:

Hi All - thanks again for the guidance/info. I've taken your advice and updated the Defence. Noted on evidence and not making their case for them. As I said this is all new to me - have never been anywhere near our legal system so am in unfamiliar territory - hopefully I don't butcher it and it's a good learning curve. 

Some further questions:

• Why should I not submit the response this week? The deadline is fast approaching and I don't want to miss it. It's 31st July I believe?

This is why:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80169203#Comment_80169203

UNITED92

Thanks all - removed first sentence of para 4. Will send final revised version tomorrow morning, deadline day! 

Any news from DLUHC to help my defence?

Coupon-mad

Yes.  See the discussion thread today!

I will be updating the Template Defence late tonight.

limu

Hey @Coupon-mad please may you let me know where I can find the updated Template Defence?