Help with defence please.

Coupon-mad

Your paragraphs look fine to me.

Emily1275893

I didn't edit paragraph two from your template just added 'and driver' is that right? I don't need to change anything else for that do I? 

Also is that all I need to write? All the other points from 6. onwards are just copy and pasted from your template without being edited? 

Sorry I think I am overthinking it and stressing

Emily1275893

Altogether I overstayed 35 mins. Due to being unable to park, the delay in getting out and back in the vehicle, the machine that wouldn't let me enter my reg for a long time and loading the car with a baby in an awkward spot. They have this on camera of me entering and leaving the car park (just pictures of my reg with the times written underneath). Do I need to add any of this info in? Also I noticed some people request a SAR is that something I should be doing? 

Coupon-mad

No and no. What you have done is fine.

No SAR.

Emily1275893

Thank you so much

Gr1pr

Good job so far, despite your current issues with other matters, if CM says it is ok, then stick with it 

All the other stuff can be in your WS, probably next year, so once this is done and emailed, you can expect the CNBC to notify you of procedural matters, then the N180 with mandatory mediation by phone, then it might go quiet for a few months. ( Apart from in your house, so good luck. )

Keep coming back to this thread for future assistance with the case

Le_Kirk

Emily1275893 said:

4. Due to the poor layout of the claimant's car park, coupled with poor management in allowing tree stumps to grow in parking bays and not making sure there was sufficient room between bays, the car park is extremely hard to manoeuvre even a small vehicle in, the bays are not clear, and some are on inclines, on angles or obstructed by trees and other objects, delaying parking and making it especially hard If you need to open all doors to unload or load children.

I might just adjust paragraph 4 as above.  The rest looks good.

Emily1275893

Thank you @Le_Kirk !

Emily1275893

I know I've got till September to submit this but i want to get it out of the way before i have my baby next week. 
I am going to send the below but just want to know again if i am right to include all of the template @Coupon-mad kindly drafted for us on the 'template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs' link.
I won't copy and paste all of my defence because i have only added in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, as below. Is there anything in it that is not relevant to my case i need to remove from the template?

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 and driver.

3. The Defendant had a scheduled visit at Stockport Job Centre on 10/10/2022 and parked in the car park in question that day. After driving around for over 10 minutes the Defendant finally managed to reverse into the only spot available with a tree stump in the bay. After struggling to get her baby out of the car and the pram out of such a tight spot, the Defendant went on to purchase a ticket for one hour for £2. Upon returning to her car before the hour was up, the Defendant noticed a car had parked even closer to her which caused a delay in getting her baby and transport back into the vehicle.

4. Due to the poor layout of the Claimant's car park, coupled with poor management in allowing tree stumps to grow in parking bays, and not making sure there is sufficient room between bays, the car park is extremely hard to manoeuvre even a small vehicle in. The bays are not clear, some are on inclines, on angles or obstructed by trees and other objects, delaying parking and making it especially hard If you need to open all doors to unload or load children.

5. The Defendant did not receive any letters from the parking company until January 2023 where there was no option to appeal, just to pay the inflated fee of £170 which she assumed was a scam.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

8. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

9. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

10. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

11. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: *link*

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

12. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here: *link*

13. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

14. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

I'll only copy this bit but i have included all 30 points on my defence as in the original template. 

Thank you in advance!

Coupon-mad

Yes that's all good.

Best wishes for the imminent birth & baby joy!