Country Claim form.

Le_Kirk

Aprilsunflower said:

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.

You state that there was no readily observable nor readable signage but then go on to describe it.  I might adjust that following sentence to say that the signage was observed on a subsequent visit on foot after having received the PCN.

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 signage was only observed on a subsequent visit on foot after having received the PCN. 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. 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.

Aprilsunflower

Is my defence ready to go? I can email it on Monday 

Le_Kirk

I would say so.

nightfly99

Aprilsunflower said:

Is my defence ready to go? I can email it on Monday 

I know the newbies thread advises sending on a weekday, but I submitted my defence today and I got an e-mail confirmation back that it was received (AUTO RESPONSE DO NOT REPLY - CCBC AQ Acknowledgment).

Coupon-mad

That's all good!  

See the Template Defence thread first 12 steps for the next letters/delay times.

Aprilsunflower

Hi All, 

I wanted to thank you all for all your help and patience. I am very grateful. I submitted it earlier this week.

Hoping for the best