N1SDT forms - help please

rexmonday

Latest draft is pasted below, for your most appreciated review and critique:

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

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

4. It is admitted that on 13/02/2019, 14/02/2019 and 15/02/2019 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 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. Furthermore, it is admitted that on 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. In an almost identical situation to that raised in point 5, the Defendant again made several attempts to obtain a new permit, firstly by telephone prior to the PCN being issued on 24/02/2020. Further attempts were made by telephone, by the Defendant, to no avail. This frustration at not being able to contact the Claimant, and once again receiving a PCN despite attempts to renew, led to the Defendant attempting to contact the Claimant by email; the first email was sent on 24/02/2020. 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. On both occasions, the Defendant found the process by which permits are renewed to be difficult, time consuming and unnecessary convoluted. As a resident, the Defendant believes that the process to renew should not take several days, phone calls and emails. Furthermore, the Defendant believes that as a resident the Claimant should have made every attempt to ensure permits were renewed prior to expiration rather than issue unlawful PCNs to residents.

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.

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.

Coupon-mad

I think there's 2 or 3 paragraphs too many and you should save the detailed stuff - about emailing - until your witness statement which comes later.

Para 2 ends abruptly and needs editing at the end.

This 2019 date makes no sense for a 2020 PCN but this is the sort of detail to save for WS stage next year, anyway:

"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.

rexmonday

Thanks for your help... new draft is pasted below:

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.

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 Defendant made several attempts to obtain a new permit, firstly by telephone to no avail. The frustration at not being able to contact the Claimant led to the Defendant making several attempts to renew the permit by email.

6. The Defendant found the process by which permits are renewed to be difficult, time consuming and unnecessary convoluted. As a resident, the Defendant believes that the process to renew should not take several days, phone calls and emails. Furthermore, the Defendant believes that as a resident the Claimant should have made every attempt to ensure permits were renewed prior to expiration rather than issue unlawful PCNs to residents.

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.

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.

10. 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, in addition to evidence there must also 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.

11. 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

Yes that plus the rest of the Template Defence (all renumbered to suit) will be fine.

But what do you mean by this, who was this tenant?  Sounds like a third party:

"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."

rexmonday

Thank you again.... does this read better:

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, as the private tenant of XXXX.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's better!

Important to say that the Defendant is an authorised resident.

rexmonday

Good morning all.

I’m back on this thread again, cap in hand, asking you wonderful people for help, immensely thankful as always. 

This morning I’ve received the attached. I’d be most grateful for some advice on next steps.

Coupon-mad

That's the one mentioned in the Template Defence first 12 steps already, which are there to carry you through the first 6 months without needing our help till witness statement stage.

However we still get asked this every day despite it being covered in the Template Defence thread, e.g.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80580926/#Comment_80580926