Civil national business centre

Coupon-mad

No - not para 3 - that's obviously a different subject, so it needs its own paragraph number as seen in all the other results you found when you searched.

People have done this already and fitted it in sensibly somewhere under the section about exaggerated claim (clearly that's where it goes).

Haven't yet seen from your drafts, any evidence of you finding the other matter and transcript images that I told you to add.  You are missing something major that could avoid a hearing and kill the claim.

Change:

found themselves parked 

to 

briefly pulled over

qazxswedc123

Hi is this any better?

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. On the day in question, the Defendant briefly pulled over while remaining inside their vehicle. They did so out of concern for safety and the need to ascertain parking conditions in the area. Given the absence of available parking spaces and limited visibility of nearby parking signage, the Defendant opted to briefly stop and assess the situation from within their vehicle. Their primary objective was to ensure that they adhered to parking regulations while avoiding any potential traffic hazards.

4. it is essential to highlight the inadequacy of the signage at the location in question. The Defendant firmly asserts that the lack of clear and visible signage contributed significantly to the misunderstanding of parking regulations. The absence of proper signage made it challenging for any reasonable person to discern the parking rules and restrictions in the area.

5. Along with these facts, a recent convincing appeal decision in Civil Enforcement Limited v. Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would suggest the PoC does not adhere to Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practise direction to Part 16. The behaviour that amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to establish a claim for breach of contract was not specified in the particulars of the claim as filed and served, according to HHJ Murch's ruling in the mentioned case on August 15, 2023. According to the Defendant, the basis for this Claim is an agreement reached via conduct. The Defendant claims that the Claimant has not explained how the Defendant's actions in the POC have violated the provisions of the Contract.

 Picture of transcript page 1-4 

6. Due to a represented parking firm claimant intentionally violating fundamental CPRs, the defendant thinks the claim should have been rejected at the allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC.  District Judge Robinson dismissed the claim without a hearing at the Wakefield County Court on September 8, 2023 after considering the mirror image POC from Gladstones in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v. anon):

Picture of wakefield 

7. Likewise, District Judge Sprague at the County Court in Luton dismissed a similarly poorly argued parking claim in January 2023 (again without a hearing) and provided a thorough justification for his decision:

Picture ^

8. Due to a represented parking firm claimant intentionally violating fundamental CPRs, the defendant thinks the claim should have been rejected at the allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC.

9-12 as per template 

13. Gladstones unfairly applied an interest rate of 10.25%, a seemingly arbitrary figure that exceeds the highest permissible rate in civil claims, which is 8%, subject to the court's discretion. Research reveals that this legal representative, operating as a roboclaim firm affiliated with the IPC trade body, consistently imposes a 10.25% interest rate. Furthermore, they rank among the top five "bulk parking case litigators," as indicated in the government's analysis. Gladstones unquestionably initiate tens of thousands of inflated parking claims annually, all bearing the incorrect and objectionable 10.25% interest rate and the unconscionably inflated £60 or £70 charge per PCN, resulting in substantial augmentations to numerous claims. Given the Ministry of Justice's quarterly statistics indicating that 90% of small claims culminate in default County Court Judgments (CCJs), this practice undeniably constitutes an abuse of the system, seemingly driven by Gladstones' profit motive and unrelated to the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.

Coupon-mad

and the Practise direction to Part 16

What?  Not sure who first typed that but why did they add the word 'to' and ruin it with a US spelling and lack of capital initials?  Should read:

and the Practice Direction Part 16

even worse:

a recent convincing appeal decision

Whaaat?  Where did the wrong and random word 'convincing' come from and replace the word persuasive?  It looks like someone has tried to re-write a perfect piece of prose and has removed the correct wording.

B789

Coupon-mad said:

and the Practise direction to Part 16

What?  Not sure who first typed that but why did they add the word 'to' and ruin it with a US spelling and lack of capital initials?  Should read:

and the Practice Direction Part 16

It's the exact wording from the transcript.

Coupon-mad

Bad Transcriber!

qazxswedc123

sorry i used quillbot to paraphrase LOL 
will make those edits in the draft
but overall is that a decent enough defence?

Coupon-mad

Yes, except you haven't actually said that you then continued your journey within minutes, so this stop was part of the normal course of driving and not a parking event at all. Also you should add a line stating that the PCN was issued wrhin a minute, based on covert and predatory tactics and in breach of the Code of Practice rules on 'consideration/grace' periods.

qazxswedc123

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, except you haven't actually said that you then continued your journey within minutes, so this stop was part of the normal course of driving and not a parking event at all. Also you should add a line stating that the PCN was issued wrhin a minute, based on covert and predatory tactics and in breach of the Code of Practice rules on 'consideration/grace' periods.

can i still say this even if i was stopped for a little longer than a few minutes?

Coupon-mad

If their photos only show a minute or two then you should state what I said!

Surely it's true to say you left 'within minutes' (you don't have to say how many. How would you know? This is their case to prove).

qazxswedc123

Coupon-mad said:

If their photos only show a minute or two then you should state what I said!

Surely it's true to say you left 'within minutes' (you don't have to say how many. How would you know? This is their case to prove).

hi so i update the wording previously recommended. i also edited this para to include what u mentioned

3. On the day in question, the Defendant briefly pulled over while remaining inside their vehicle. They did so out of concern for safety and the need to ascertain parking conditions in the area. Given the absence of available parking spaces and limited visibility of nearby parking signage, the Defendant opted to briefly stop and assess the situation from within their vehicle. Their primary objective was to ensure that they adhered to parking regulations while avoiding any potential traffic hazards. The journey was then continued within minutes, so this stop was part of the normal course of driving and not a parking event at all. The PCN was issued within minutes, based on covert and predatory tactics and in breach of the Code of Practice rules on ‘consideration/grace’ periods.

thank u again!