N1SDT forms - help please

rexmonday

Coupon-mad said:

You didn't email the AOS did you? 

Nope, I did exactly as the Dropbox guide suggested, and use the website / portal.

Defence is next… am I best to follow the next step of the newbie thread?

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

The steps are in the Template Defence thread. 

rexmonday

Hey. I've started pulling together my defence, but have hit a stumbling block I was hoping someone could help with please.

Paragrpah 3 of the template defence thread states that "Most claims do not even state what the alleged breach was... etc etc" 

My POC of my claim states: Reason: expired ticket/voucher/permit

On this basis I assume that paragraph 3 isn't applicable for my case, however, at the end of paragraph 3 of the template defence it states:

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights (some old defence examples of that are in the NEWBIES thread to crib wording from). We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs re-numbered to allow for the above and the CEL v Chan transcript in the link).

My question is, should I be including CEL v Chan given the tickets parking tickets were issued at the flat I rent?

Thanks

rexmonday

Okay... here's my first draft. Comments would be appreciated:

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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

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.

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and probable driver of vehicle registration mark XXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that on 13/02/2019, 14/02/2019, 15/02/2019 and 24/02/2020 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at XXXX because this was the defendant’s home, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

5. The Claimant issued parking charges due to an expired permit on 13/02/2019, 14/02/2019, 15/02/2019 and 24/02/2020. The Defendant made several attempts to obtain a new permit, firstly by telephone prior to the first PCN being issued on 13/02/2019. Further attempts were made by telephone, by the Defendant, to no avail. The frustration at not being able to contact the Claimant, and receiving further PCNs, led to the Defendant attempting to contact the Claimant by email; the first email was sent on 18/02/2019. Despite the aforementioned attempts to contact the Claimant, by both telephone and email, the Claimant did not respond until 18/02/2019. The Claimant’s response was via email.

6. The Defendant also made attempts to ensure the vehicle was added to an ‘exemption list’ until a new permit was obtained. On 18/02/2019, a representative of the Claimant confirmed that the vehicle had been added to an exemption list until 25/02/2019. Despite this, a fourth PCN was issued on 24/02/2019.

7. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and private tenant of XXXX

As a private tenant the Defendant reasonably assumes that the landlord’s leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land and that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle.

8. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9. Accordingly it is denied that:
9.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
9.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
9.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages’ as vaguely stated in the template POC.

 [THEN THE REST OF THE TEMPLATE FROM THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE THREAD]

Coupon-mad

That looks almost ready.

You are right not to use the Chan case.

Remove this:

"The Claimant issued parking charges due to an expired permit on 13/02/2019, 14/02/2019, 15/02/2019 and 24/02/2020."

And remove this because assumptions are not OK:

"As a private tenant the Defendant reasonably assumes that the landlord’s leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land and that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. "

rexmonday

Thank you very much... I've made those changes. 

In terms of the rest of the defence, am I okay to use all of the suggested defence in the template thread (points 4 to 30), or do any of these need to be amended/removed?

Many thanks!

1505grandad

Just checking  -  are all the dates correct in this para:-

"6. The Defendant also made attempts to ensure the vehicle was added to an ‘exemption list’ until a new permit was obtained. On 18/02/2019, a representative of the Claimant confirmed that the vehicle had been added to an exemption list until 25/02/2019. Despite this, a fourth PCN was issued on 24/02/2019."

rexmonday

I will double check the dates before I send the defence, but 'm confident they're correct. 

RE: my point below rexmonday said:

In terms of the rest of the defence, am I okay to use all of the suggested defence in the template thread (points 4 to 30), or do any of these need to be amended/removed?

I'd be most appreciative if someone could help

Thanks

1505grandad

I was querying:-

"4. It is admitted that on 13/02/2019, 14/02/2019, 15/02/2019 and 24/02/2020......"

Against:-

"Despite this, a fourth PCN was issued on 24/02/2019."

rexmonday

1505grandad said:

I was querying:-

"4. It is admitted that on 13/02/2019, 14/02/2019, 15/02/2019 and 24/02/2020......"

Against:-

"Despite this, a fourth PCN was issued on 24/02/2019."

Thank you, that's a great spot. I need to do some research around the PCN issued in 2020, and amend my defence.