DCBLegal

Gr1pr

If the defence has been checked and is good to go , then yes, save it as a PDF and attach it to your email to the correct email address at the CNBC, putting the details required in the email header and a short note that the attachment should be logged onto the claim reference as your defence submission 

Then check your inbox and spam folders for the email auto response, which should be not long after you send it 

Then keep following the steps outlined in the 2 advice threads in announcements 

Gedukaz

Le_Kirk said:

Do you want to show us the first few paragraphs of your defence for critique and advice but, if using the template, we do not need to see it all.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

I am, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

 

Facts and sequence of events

My company secured a large section of private land the to create an enclosed site compound to carry out extensive work on buildings on the land from Oct 2022 till June 2024. My vehicle is parked on private land which Capital Car Parking have no jurisdiction over. The private land can only be accessed via Street. The Capital CCTV camera is located at the entrance to Street and captures my vehicle entering the estate at the start of the working day and leaving at the end of the working day. However, I am not parked in any bay or area controlled by Capital Car Parking. A video showing the parking area and where the vehicle was parked is available upon request. There is evidence and confirmation from the local authority prior to the project starting, confirming that the land is private and that Capital Car Parking has no jurisdiction over it. There is also additional evidence that the area could be accessed from several entry points. The video is has been taken and available upon request.

The explanation was sent to the claimant that the original letter from the parking enforcement was never received. The only letter that was received was a final reminder of the increased payment. The defendant has requested the original letter and the option to appeal via POPLA. However, the company refused this option, claiming they had sent the letter without evidence.

The defendant explained to the Capital Car Parking company that they were asking for the payment for entering the area. No parking has been used during that time.

The claimant has no proof of parking in the area. The claimant has ignored all the evidence produced to them.

In the red square, is the compound and the company has no jurisdiction for this area.

The parking company noted that this is only one way in and out. This is a faulty statement. In the picture attached with a blue arrow, there is a secondary emergency entrance to the area. As noted previously a Video is available upon request.

The Claimant company uses the drawing attached. This is an extract from the POPLA appeal. The Yellow part is where they are monitoring. To enter our working area and the compound, we must pass the road (noted on the drawing) where the claimant has installed the CCTV camera and issuing the invoices for parking.

The council confirmed that this is a privately owned area that belongs to our client and they have no jurisdiction over it.

Additionally I have attached some of the pictures for the area and the parking for our compound.

Gr1pr

You are supposed to be at the defence stage, not the witness statement stage, the latter happens in several months time 

What you posted above is not a defence, it even states that its a witness statement, plus its written in first party language, using I etc 

Gedukaz

Gr1pr said:

You are supposed to be at the defence stage, not the witness statement stage, the latter happens in several months time 

What you posted above is not a defence, it even states that its a witness statement, plus its written in first party language, using I

The first party was used for the Name which I deleted for this one.

Regarding the template, then I am lost because I had understood that this should be the correct one.

Coupon-mad

You just use the Template Defence. 

@KeithP linked you to the second post of the NEWBIES thread where your stage is DEFENCE. Not 'witness statement' (yet).

Also there is no such company as 'Capital Car Parking' so make sure your headings copy the actual company name from the Claim Form (obviously not the solicitor firm).

Gedukaz

Coupon-mad said:

You just use the Template Defence. 

@KeithP linked you to the second post of the NEWBIES thread where your stage is DEFENCE. Not 'witness statement' (yet).

Also there is no such company as 'Capital Car Parking' so make sure your headings copy the actual company name from the Claim Form (obviously not the solicitor firm).

IN THE COUNTY COURT                                                               Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

Capital Car Park Control

(Claimant)

 

My Details

(Defendant)

 

Defence

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 28th May 2024. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. My company secured a large section of private land to create an enclosed site compound to carry out extensive work on buildings on the land from Oct 2022 till June 2024. The defendant's vehicle was parked on private land which Capital Car Park Control have no jurisdiction over. The private land can only be accessed via Hotspur Street. The Capital Car Park Control CCTV camera is located at the entrance to Hotspur Street and captures the defendant's vehicle entering the estate at the start of the working day and leaving at the end of the working day. However, the defendant had not parked in any bay or area controlled by Capital Car Park Control.

A video showing the parking area and where the vehicle was parked is available upon request. There is evidence and confirmation from the local authority prior to the project starting, confirming that the land is private and that Capital Car Park Control has no jurisdiction over it. There is also additional evidence that the area could be accessed from several entry points. The video has been taken and is available upon request.

The explanation was sent to the claimant that the original letter from the parking enforcement was never received. The only letter that was received was a final reminder of the increased payment. The defendant has requested the original letter and the option to appeal via POPLA. However, the company refused this option, claiming they had sent the letter without evidence.

The defendant explained to the Capital Car Pak Control company that they were asking for payment for entering the area. No parking has been used during that time.

The claimant has no proof of parking in the area. The claimant has ignored all the evidence produced to them.

In the red square, is the compound and the company has no jurisdiction for this area.

The parking company noted that this is only one way in and out. This is a faulty statement. In the picture attached with a blue arrow, there is a secondary emergency entrance to the area. As noted previously a Video is available upon request.

The Payment for the parking is £ 2 per day which affects any person parking within the Capital Car Pak Control area. The £ 100-pound invoice was sent to pay for accessing the area.

The Claimant company uses the drawing attached. This is an extract from the POPLA appeal. The Yellow part is where they are monitoring. To enter our working area and the compound, we must pass the road (noted on the drawing) where the claimant has installed the CCTV camera and issued the invoices for parking.

Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract. The defendant used the compound provided by the Company.

The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £263.56 the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Second Try

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs require a number.  Defences are written in third person so no "I", "me" or "my". Are you going to add that into the standard defence template? 

Gr1pr

IMHO

To much information, save it for the witness statement, just use a concise rebuttal of the POC 

I don't think that the above is using the defence template 

The statement of truth at the end is incorrect and the correct statement is already in the defence template 

See the following example of what we expect to see, before it is slotted into the template defence 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6529980/seeking-feedback-on-legal-defence-letter-for-private-parking-fine-county-court#latest

Gedukaz

Gr1pr said:

IMHO

To much information, save it for the witness statement, just use a concise rebuttal of the POC 

I don't think that the above is using the defence template 

The statement of truth at the end is incorrect and the correct statement is already in the defence template 

See the following example of what we expect to see, before it is slotted into the template defence 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6529980/seeking-feedback-on-legal-defence-letter-for-private-parking-fine-county-court#latest

I used the template that I found on one of the treads. So the one that I have attached is not applicable and has too much information.

I will remove some of the parts and amend it to the template you have included.

Gedukaz

Gedukaz said:

Gr1pr said:

IMHO

To much information, save it for the witness statement, just use a concise rebuttal of the POC 

I don't think that the above is using the defence template 

The statement of truth at the end is incorrect and the correct statement is already in the defence template 

See the following example of what we expect to see, before it is slotted into the template defence 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6529980/seeking-feedback-on-legal-defence-letter-for-private-parking-fine-county-court#latest

I used the template that I found on one of the treads. So the one that I have attached is not applicable and has too much information.

I will remove some of the parts and amend it to the template you have included.

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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.

5. A company secured a large section of private land to create an enclosed site compound to carry out extensive work on buildings on the land from Oct 2022 till June 2024. The defendant's vehicle was parked on private land which Capital Car Park Control have no jurisdiction over. The private land can only be accessed via Hotspur Street. The Capital Car Park Control CCTV camera is located at the entrance to Hotspur Street and captures the defendant's vehicle entering the estate at the start of the working day and leaving at the end of the working day. However, the defendant had not parked in any bay or area controlled by Capital Car Park Control.

Hopefully final