Claim Form ( Euro Car Parks )

Coupon-mad

The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on.

They don't have to. It just has to state the conduct. I think the POC are OK ish (except for the wrong date of PCN issue and calculation of interest).

I don't think they should hide who was driving, either. Too many technical arguments.  Not needed.

I reckon the OP just uses the Template Defence, adds 'and driver' at the end of para 2 and then puts as their paragraph 3:


3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1.  Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2.  The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on.

They don't have to. It just has to state the conduct. I think the POC are OK ish (except for the wrong date of PCN issue and calculation of interest).

I don't think they should hide who was driving, either. Too many technical arguments.  Not needed.

I reckon the OP just uses the Template Defence, adds 'and driver' at the end of para 2 and then puts as their paragraph 3:


3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1.  Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2.  The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

Thanks very much. much appreciated. i shall start my defence now and present here for any feedback.

Gr1pr

Its already been written above, so what feedback. ?

Coupon-mad

baz417 said:

Coupon-mad said:

The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on.

They don't have to. It just has to state the conduct. I think the POC are OK ish (except for the wrong date of PCN issue and calculation of interest).

I don't think they should hide who was driving, either. Too many technical arguments.  Not needed.

I reckon the OP just uses the Template Defence, adds 'and driver' at the end of para 2 and then puts as their paragraph 3:


3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1.  Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2.  The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

Thanks very much. much appreciated. i shall start my defence now and present here for any feedback.

No feedback needed. It's written for you.

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

baz417 said:

Coupon-mad said:

The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on.

They don't have to. It just has to state the conduct. I think the POC are OK ish (except for the wrong date of PCN issue and calculation of interest).

I don't think they should hide who was driving, either. Too many technical arguments.  Not needed.

I reckon the OP just uses the Template Defence, adds 'and driver' at the end of para 2 and then puts as their paragraph 3:


3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1.  Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2.  The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

Thanks very much. much appreciated. i shall start my defence now and present here for any feedback.

No feedback needed. It's written for you.

Oh great! Was thinking to be safe side not to leave anything as last time I rushed to it  being a novice. 

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on.

They don't have to. It just has to state the conduct. I think the POC are OK ish (except for the wrong date of PCN issue and calculation of interest).

I don't think they should hide who was driving, either. Too many technical arguments.  Not needed.

I reckon the OP just uses the Template Defence, adds 'and driver' at the end of para 2 and then puts as their paragraph 3:


3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1.  Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2.  The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

I have added the the below at the end of paragraph 2:

However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. 

3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1. Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2. The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

Then added para 4 -30 as it is. so i just need to sign and date, convert to pdf , atttch the file in email and send it to  ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk . hope am not missing anything  

is there any benefit to send at a later date rather than now?

by the way I am really grateful to you for writing the defence. i would not be able to come closer to the way to wrote even after many days of trying honestly 

Thanks  

Gr1pr

No benefit in waiting, done is done, but only submitted when the auto email response comes back, only logged when MCOL claim history has been updated due to the defence being added or logged by the CNBC in Northampton 

Coupon-mad

So you didn't add to the end of para 2 what I advised you to add?

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

So you didn't add to the end of para 2 what I advised you to add?

My aplogies, this is what i forgot to add last night i guess....  

I have added the the below at the end of paragraph 2:

However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 

3. It is denied that (1) the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further denied that (2) a PCN was issued on 18 January 2022. Interest has been prematurely calculated from an incorrect date and on an incorrect sum. The PCN arrived in early February and was not for £170, not that any sum is owed because parking was fully paid for on site.

3.1. Breach of contract is also denied, on the basis that on that day the P&D machines were  broken. The Defendant could not get an answer from the supposed 'customer service' helpline and made more than reasonable endeavours to comply.  In total, the Defendant was forced to waste almost an hour: firstly finding a space in a small limited parking site, joining a long queue to pay, then finding out that the machine was not working, fruitlessly trying to ring the Helpline, etc.  Eventually, the Defendant managed to pay via PaybyPhone, however this cannot be backdated and the timing of the hours were displayed as from 11:36am to 13:36pm.

3.2. The Defendant takes the point that any term expecting drivers to pay immediately on entry was not only not prominently advertised but was in fact void for impossibility on the material date. No conduct of the Defendant was in breach nor caused any mischief that could meet the high bar to justify a charge that falls foul of the penalty rule.  The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished and there is no legitimate interest to save this charge. 

Then added para 4 -30 as it is. so i just need to sign and date, convert to pdf , atttch the file in email and send it to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk . 

Hope it is ok to send now?

Coupon-mad

Yep.