VCS court claim Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited Leeds Bradford Airport

Coupon-mad

That's fine. Elms only file the claims and will step away from the process in the new year.

JanHen29

I have made paragraph numbers

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

The Driver was at the airport to use the 1-hour free parking. It was already dark (around 10pm). There are a lot of roundabouts at this airport, and a lot of road signs to watch. The driver was required to make an emergency stop.

3.1.The byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit. The vehicle was not parked at any point.

3.2. The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times. The signage would therefore be prohibitive in nature and would not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as stopping or parking, at a price). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.

3.3. The particulars outline the contract’s accepting conduct to be the entering of private land.  When approaching the signs in a vehicle, it is not possible to perform the declining conduct without first performing the accepting conduct.  In this scenario the Defendant has not had reasonable time to read and digest the terms. The "no stopping" term was forced upon the Defendant, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

i.  “A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”

Coupon-mad

Looks fine - except I'd use normal numbering, not 3.1 etc. 

JanHen29

I changed the numbering of the paragraphs :

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 denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

The Driver was at the airport to use the 1-hour free parking. It was already dark (around 10pm). There are a lot of roundabouts at this airport, and a lot of road signs to watch. The driver was required to make an emergency stop.

4.The byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit. The vehicle was not parked at any point.

5. The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times. The signage would therefore be prohibitive in nature and would not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as stopping or parking, at a price). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.

6. The particulars outline the contract’s accepting conduct to be the entering of private land.  When approaching the signs in a vehicle, it is not possible to perform the declining conduct without first performing the accepting conduct.  In this scenario the Defendant has not had reasonable time to read and digest the terms. The "no stopping" term was forced upon the Defendant, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

i.  “A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”

After these 6 points, should I add the rest of the form template defence starting from point 4?

JanHen29

Good afternoon. I want to make sure I fill it out correctly before sending it.

After these 6 points I have posted above, should I add the rest of the form template defence starting from point 4 ?

Coupon-mad

Yes that is correct but you aren't filling anything out.

JanHen29

Thanks for your reply. I have a question. In point 2 should it be:

... Defendant was the registered keeper.

or 

... ... Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

Coupon-mad

Driver - if you were. A more honest stance.

JanHen29

Ok. Thanks I will print it out, sign, scan and send 

Coupon-mad

No need to scan or print.

Electronic signature & save as a PDF. Or photograph your signature, crop the image and pop that in above the date at the bottom.