G24 parking fine, now claim form

alexwxa

There are indeed 3 signs over there like the one i've shown previously
The arrows show where the signs are places and the dot was where my park was briefly parked.

alexwxa

Update:
I went today again and managed to get few more photos of the signs.
I've also did the AOS.
Now to work on my defence

fisherjim

alexwxa said:

Wouldntwouldnt post before

"Authorised vehicles only with the landowners permission" 

So there was no offer to park, you cannot have entered into a contract with a third party parking firm the only recourse would be for the landowner to sue for trespass.

The PPC has no contract with you at all the signs say it all, there is no offer to park for a fee.

alexwxa

Good morning guys.
Sorry for the late replies.
The signs pictured above have been printed with really small characters, which makes them very unnoticeable unless you actually sit next to them in order to be able to read them.
Was thinking to write this reason as well on my defense.
Will it be okay?

Coupon-mad

Show us the draft first six paragraphs (not the whole Template although obviously you will be using it all).  Your facts will be in para 5 after the CEL v Chan images.

alexwxa

DEFENCE

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

5.  The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied on that road due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had briefly parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

1505grandad

There is a para missing beginning:-

"Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge......."

Your para #2 then becomes para #4

alexwxa

i've sorted it out. my main worry was my para 5

Coupon-mad

Remove this, not needed, it's not an offence and that word has no 's' anyway:

"Due to the age of the alleged offense which is over 1 year old, the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s)."