Defence for Parking Claim - advice please! (Civil National Business Centre)

A_JS

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 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. The vehicle in question is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, but liability is denied.  

 

3. The presence of the vehicle at the specified location is admitted. The Defendant is believed to of entered (***** Road) car park on the **/**/2021 at: 20:00 and exited car park: 20:19, the total duration that the vehicle was stopped here was less than 20 minutes. The Defendant’s Solent NHS Parking Permit was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle, The Defendant was working and undertaking duties by way of community visits to patients at the time the alleged parking charge was issued. The violation/breach captured on ANPR camera failed to acknowledge the Defendants valid “Visitors Permit” that was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle. The Defendant denies breaching terms and conditions of parking, photographic evidence of Defendants Permit can be provided to the court.

(Can anyone please review this for me, unsure if any parts require editing/deleting - all help welcome!) 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

Who is the Claimant?

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Poor grammar here... "The Defendant is believed to of entered...".
Should be "The Defendant is believed to have entered...".

A_JS

Hello Keith, thanks for your advice and for the grammar tip. 

 Yes I have filed Acknowledgment of service on MCOL:

A claim was issued against you on 09/04/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 14/04/2024 at 09:25:29

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 15/04/2024 at 01:06:11

Claimant: Civil Enforcement LTD

Can you advise if any of the other sections in my draft defence should be altered, my circumstances are slightly difference given having a permit in my windscreen that wouldn't of been considered with the ANPR.

KeithP

A_JS said:

A claim was issued against you on 09/04/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 15/04/2024 at 01:06:11

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th May 2024 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

A_JS

KeithP said:

A_JS said:

A claim was issued against you on 09/04/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 15/04/2024 at 01:06:11

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th May 2024 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thank you KeithP I am familiar with the next steps having read through posts yesterday, the main question I had is does further info need to be added to form my defence or is this sufficient? 
I am using the draft I posted above? ^^ Due to the circumstances, should I be including anything extra -  does the first paragraph (1.) remain as is or does it need to be changed based on the fact I know the POC is due to parking for "permit holders" only?

Coupon-mad

Show us the POC.

A_JS

Coupon-mad said:

Show us the POC.

Thank you Coupon-mad. Please see below:

KeithP

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong - just a few words saying that the driver 'breached the contract terms'.

This will be an easy win if you add the CEL v Chan stuff to your proposed Defence.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for violation date defence

A_JS

KeithP said:

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong - just a few words saying that the driver 'breached the contract terms'.

This will be an easy win if you add the CEL v Chan stuff to your proposed Defence.

KeithP, thanks for your reply. Can you advise if what I have drafted below (2 and 3) is an appropriate defence to the POC please? 

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The vehicle in question is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, but liability is denied.  

 

3. The presence of the vehicle at the specified location is admitted. The Defendant is believed to have entered (*** Road) car park on the 14/11/2021 at: 20:00 and exited car park at: 20:19, the total duration that the vehicle was stopped here was less than 20 minutes. The Defendant’s Solent NHS Parking Permit was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle, The Defendant was an authorised user working and undertaking duties by way of community visits to patients at the time the alleged parking charge was issued. The “violation” that was captured on ANPR camera failed to acknowledge the Defendants valid “Essential Visitor Permit” that was clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle at the time. The Defendant denies breaching terms and conditions of parking, the defendant was a permitted visitor using the car park appropriately and there has been no loss nor detriment caused to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge may be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that this 'fine' of £216.94 is a conscionable amount to be charged under these circumstances. Photographic evidence of Defendants Permit will be provided to the court.

 

A_JS

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for violation date defence

Sorry being a newbie, I am not sure how - I tried searching with the magnifying glass but nothing specific came up. Are you able to link it so I can find easily please Coupon-mad?