Challenge Default Judgement : Premier Park Drop Case. Counterclaim denied.

Le_Kirk

The Draft Order goes as a Word document so that the judge can amend the dates.

stuart_c2023

Thanks for heads up on address and feedback

Particulars of Claim

The driver of the vehicle with registration KIJI 8SDZ (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at BRANSCOMBE BEACH CAR PARK BRANSCOMBE (ANPR) - BRANSCOMBE, DEVON, EX12 3DP, on 28/09/2022 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability, THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £15.12 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 10.25% per annum, continuing at £0.05 per day

This is what is on the Claim Form.

I've had a read of the CEL V CHAN transcript . Interesting that says MCOL not fit for purpose which is where my defence went awry.

I'll append as a reference on basis that entering the car park does not form contract, but as my case should be obvious to anyone who bothers to read the documents I'm in two minds as to overcomplicate..

Coupon-mad

"Interesting that says MCOL not fit for purpose." 

Does it?

stuart_c2023

Paragraph 4 says that issues arise from the character limitations of MCOL and the need to append documents.
Fit for purpose is my engineering background rather than legal.

UncleThomasCobley

stuart_c2023 said:

Paragraph 4 says that issues arise from the character limitations of MCOL and the need to append documents.
Fit for purpose is my engineering background rather than legal.

That is as maybe. However, the main point is that the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

stuart_c2023

Thanks for the repsonses.

I've updated Witness Statement in relation CEL v CHAN CPR (which I have appended) and Exagerated Claims including nice Para about excessive interest rates

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/94evhyf0ohbqcquh5sm24/K8GF1J0W-WITNESS-STATEMENT.docx?rlkey=1fdcgpdjo2sqfqfhyjzcqjyku&dl=0

I haven't added much more from the template WS as mainly relate to signage which I don't feel pertinent to my case.
Think this is about ready to go unless any more advice (gratefully received as ever)

Coupon-mad

Unclear non-prominent Signage/Terms is ALWAYS ALWAYS the foundation; the first basis of any defence or submission v any PPC.

They obviously have signs. They always do.
The point is, the £100 isn't prominent...is it?

stuart_c2023

A wonderful 3 hours on hold to listen to a poor young lady who read off MCOL screen and had no idea of my complaints.

Transfered to payments for the N244 swiftly enough😛 All documents sent via email with automatic reply apologising for delays, which are up to 29 days to respond to a written reply. How they could timebar my defence is laughable . No email to say they’ve taken my money as told by second clueless young lady so attached screenshot of bank transaction.

Lets see if get response through the system quicker than bailiffs.

stuart_c2023

Letter from the Northampton Center to say case transferred to Plymouth County Court for determination of set aside. Hopefully someone will finally read my evidence.

Le_Kirk

Hopefully that court suits you.