Country Claim form.

Coupon-mad

Aprilsunflower said:

Hi all,

I hope you are well. Is this worth pursuing ? or should I just pay it off in instalments ? 

Many thanks

What? You won't be paying it!

Aprilsunflower

KeithP said:

Aprilsunflower said:

Hi all,

I hope you are well. Is this worth pursuing ? or should I just pay it off in instalments ? 

Many thanks

It is nearly two weeks since I offered you some guidance.
You don't appear to have even noticed that.

really sorry! thank you. I get really stressed and anxious and it just goes downhill from there. Working on it now.

Aprilsunflower

Not_A_Hope said:

I cannot open links on your original post. However the single photo you have taken and the Google images suggest to me that the signs were not clear and obvious and you could argue you therefore did not enter a contact to pay £100 or whatever the PPC is asking.

I assume they want at least £170 now including alleged (false) debt collection fees. If it goes to a hearing and you lose it is probably going to cost you £260. However with a robust defence and witness statement many PPCs after all their threats withdraw or don’t turn up at the hearing in which case you win.

You have until the 20th to make your mind up which way you are going with this. Don’t miss that deadline or you automatically lose. You could show us a redacted copy of the claim form which shows the claimant and the particulars of their claim

Hi, thank you. Please see this.           https://postlmg.cc/5Q4tJsGw

Coupon-mad

OK so it does state the breach 'no permit' so using our Template Defence, your paragraph 3 should respond to that allegation.

Coupon-mad

No need to show us beyond paragraph 5 and you'll get more people looking if your posts are concise, so please edit and delete the above post to stop at para 5.  Although of course your actual document will include it all!

Were you visiting a tenant so believed you were an authorised visitor? If so, add that to para 3.

Not_A_Hope

The defendant was parked on a land with no readable signage from a car length away, nor from the driving seat of a moving car.

Perhaps you might change to ‘parked on land with no readily observable nor readable signage’. I wouldn’t mention ‘car length’ as a judge might think you could see them and should have looked at them. In your WS you can add that the signs were perpendicular to the road making them difficult to observe and mounted high up a lamp post / wall which would make them impossible to read.

The rest of that para is fine.

Aprilsunflower

Dear all,

Thank you for the further guidance,

please see the edited paragraph for defence

3. The claimant states the defendant was parked in a private land without a permit. The defendant was parked on land with no readily observable nor readable signage.The Terms and Conditions, and the charge for breaching them are in illegible font, so these terms could not have adequately been brought to the attention of the driver, therefore the signs are incapable of forming a contract.

4. 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.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

The sign only offers a contract to permit holders.  No contract is offered to all-comers.  It would be in the gift of the Housing Association to sue trespassers but not this third party to twist the situation into a purported contract. This sign only relates to an offer allowing parking (under certain conditions) for those with permits.  It would be impossible for a non-permit holder to comply. 

Aprilsunflower

Coupon-mad said:

The sign only offers a contract to permit holders.  No contract is offered to all-comers.  It would be in the gift of the Housing Association to sue trespassers but not this third party to twist the situation into a purported contract. This sign only relates to an offer allowing parking (under certain conditions) for those with permits.  It would be impossible for a non-permit holder to comply. 

Thank you. Is that something I should add in to my defence above ? or I mention it in my witness statement? Is my defence okay? 

Not_A_Hope

I would add Coupon_mads words to your para 3. Perhaps after the second sentence