Parking Control Management N1SDT

90Ninety

Coupon-mad said:

Para 5 surely?

Ok sir/mam  , ive added some meat , thanks for the support

5. 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, there must 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. The driver did not observe any such signage during parking due to their placement which was either too high, obscured/hidden, and not in the line of sight of the defendant when exiting/entering the car park.

6. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) above had been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, unlike  ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), that was ruled to have a legitimate deterrent to prevent overstaying vehicles, this situation can be fully distinguished and not relevant to the legitimate interest of ‘overstaying’ , since the POC states that the vehicle was within residential property parking where there is no payment incentive for visitors , or issues regarding overstaying , and parking is for residents and visitors only , not commercial .

As mentioned  there weren’t enough clear obvious signage to warn of any contractual parking restrictions that may have been in place , before the car had been parked 

Coupon-mad

No, paragraph 5 in the linked version isn't that one. Just use the linked version where paragraph is very clearly 'your facts'. You even quoted the section with the link to it.

Click on the link.

Use that paragraph order.

90Ninety

Coupon-mad said:

No, paragraph 5 in the linked version isn't that one. Just use the linked version where paragraph is very clearly 'your facts'. You even quoted the section with the link to it.

Click on the link.

Use that paragraph order.

.Wires crossed  The only link provided is a document , there is no other links  .. Do you mean the citation ' ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ' 

Perhaps then I should remove the ' Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) part , from the second template here 

Coupon-mad

But that hyperlink IS the defence to use.

I don't understand the difficulty?

90Ninety

I dont understand the difficulty either .. Why are we in the position in the first place 

I was told I could park there by the owner , and the tenant .. Yet these parasites are continuing to make my life difficult, even worse because its my elderly mother who will likely get a CCJ  

I have misunderstood somehow the template , which I understood as , copy and paste, edit name, claim reference , add your facts to paragraph 4-5 - Done ..  

Yet somehow I am still here scratching my head , because the defense is still not sufficient . 

Le_Kirk

Since the POC are vague, you, well elderly Mother, simply uses the @hharry defence shown here: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627
and adjusts paragraph #5 to say very little except maybe "the car was there" without admitting anything else or embellishing or adding, since you have NO IDEA what the claimant is claiming.  Then take out the instruction words and that becomes Mother's defence.  Save as a .pdf and send to the e-mail address shown in the table in the Template Defence thread.

Coupon-mad

90Ninety said:

I dont understand the difficulty either .. Why are we in the position in the first place 

I was told I could park there by the owner , and the tenant .. Yet these parasites are continuing to make my life difficult, even worse because its my elderly mother who will likely get a CCJ  

I have misunderstood somehow the template , which I understood as , copy and paste, edit name, claim reference , add your facts to paragraph 4-5 - Done .. 

Not 'done' though, because do you see that your para 5 above isn't what it should be?

90Ninety

OK I will write a second draft , I think the penny dropped 

Thanks

90Ninety

Ok 

So I have just read and re-read the CEL vs Chan Defense .  Then I created fresh from a new template  and added the points from the CEL vs Chan Defense , in my own words :

Insufficient  Claim Particulars
   The defendant is the owner of the vehicle, however, the defendant is not aware
exactly of what the claim is relating to and its likely the owner was not the
driver. The defendant is unaware of any written, oral or other  agreement in place with the Claimant. Furthermore
the particulars of claim, alleging to have a ‘breach of contract’ regarding
parking  are not sufficient to set out
the conduct relied upon as amounting to a breach of contract .According to CPR the
contents of the particulars of claim .  ‘The
POC (particulars of claim) must include concise statement of facts , a statement
of interest, and any other matters as set out in Practice Direction’ As listed
in Practice direction 16, paragraph 7 “ Other matters included in the POC” Pertinent
to this claim is paragraph 7.5, that states “Where a claim is based upon an
agreement by conduct relied upon and state by whom , when and where the acts
constituting the conduct were done”  It
is alleged that “the driver breached the terms on the signs (the contract)”. The
Particulars of this claim are totally inadequate. Nowhere within the
particulars is there explanation of what is alleged to have occurred . There is
no recollection of any misconduct of the owner or any drivers of this vehicle .
 There are a number of ways in which one
might breach a contract terms and conditions . This is not set out  or mentioned in the brief claim particulars .
The claim particulars do not meet Practice Direction 16 Paragraph 7.5 . By way
of example, one may have left their permit obscured. There maybe failure to
park within the correct bay. The car may also have parked in a space reserved
for those with disabilities , without showing a disabled badge . Alternatively
it may be whereby a case of overstaying a certain period of time . None of these examples were given in the particulars 

The full document is (version 2) here 

KeithP

That's not a useful link...