Claim Form from Civil National Business Centre

LDast

So, if you read the bit about how to respond to an LoC, you come to this bit:

If you get a court claim, don't panic, c99% of defendants here, win!

You don't get a CCJ even if you lose, if you pay within 30 days of judgment, nothing stays on the register (credit record). No 'risk' as long as you don't miss court deadlines, you may as well defend and fight!

So, where to start dealing with a claim?

Go back and have another, careful, read of the second post in the Newbies/FAQ thread and continue reading past the bit shown above.

KeithP

CanineLover said:

I guess this helpful advice is not for me then as i have a CLAIM FORM and not an LBC as stated in the NEWBIES thread.I have contacted Parking Ticket Firm to try and see if they can help, whats my other options if they can't help?




PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE IS THE ADVICE TO RESPOND TO A LETTER OF / BEFORE CLAIM, THIS IS NOT WHAT TO DO IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CLAIM FORM

Can you see the word 'ABOVE' in there?
Keep reading.

CanineLover said:

I can't see anything being mentioned about a Claim Form in that thread, im going to keep searching the forum to see if i can find some useful info.

No need to search. as I said earlier...

KeithP said:
To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

CanineLover

Good evening,

As my time to draft a defence is almost over, (16th September),i have come up with a draft that i would like you to criticise and give your thoughts.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXX

Between

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(Claimant) 

- and -  

                        

 (Defendant)

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

_________________

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').

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.

3. Explanation of Events

Temporary Parking Due to Car Lift Issue: The vehicle was parked temporarily due to unforeseen mechanical issues with the car lift. The Defendant intended to move the vehicle as soon as the car lift was operational, which demonstrates a lack of intent to breach parking regulations.

Parking Was Not Overnight: The claim that the vehicle was parked overnight is factually incorrect. Provide evidence, if available (CCTV, timestamps, witness statements, etc.), showing the short time the vehicle was in the restricted area.

Only 3 Minutes Observation: The ticket was issued after just three minutes, which is unreasonable. In many jurisdictions and private parking areas, operators are required to provide a "grace period" for drivers to park, assess signage, or deal with unforeseen issues.

• Grace Period Standards: Research local laws or the parking company’s own rules that may mandate a longer grace period (usually 5 to 10 minutes) to ensure the ticket was issued unfairly.
• Proportional Response: You could argue that a reasonable driver needs more than three minutes to deal with a temporary situation like the one involving the car lift, and thus the issuance of a ticket so quickly was disproportionate.

The fine might be excessive for such a minor infraction, especially given the short period of time the vehicle was observed. The Defendant argues that the penalty is disproportionate, especially since the vehicle was not causing an obstruction to anyone.

The parking company’s claim that the vehicle was parked "overnight" is demonstrably false. Highlight any inconsistencies between the facts and the parking company's statements.

The car was only parked temporarily due to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances (the car lift breakdown).

The ticket was issued without allowing a reasonable grace period, which is a violation of good practice.

The information provided by the parking company is inaccurate and misleading (i.e., the car was not parked overnight).

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

Any thoughts ? 

Coupon-mad

It reads like someone has given you some flawed advice.  Reads like someone is coaching you wrongly to attach evidence (not at this stage) and has called it a 'fine' (it isn't a fine).  And this argument has no legs:

The fine might be excessive for such a minor infraction, especially given the short period of time the vehicle was observed. The Defendant argues that the penalty is disproportionate, especially since the vehicle was not causing an obstruction to anyone.

Also change

'Temporary Parking Due to Car Lift Issue: The vehicle was parked temporarily due to...' 

to

Temporary Stopping Due to Car Lift Issue: The vehicle was stopped temporarily due to 

Where was this 'car lift'?

Where were you visiting?

How come they are saying you were there overnight? Did you visit twice?

If you were driving the Template Defence tells you to say so.

CanineLover

Coupon-mad said:

It reads like someone has given you some flawed advice.  Reads like someone is coaching you wrongly to attach evidence (not at this stage) and has called it a 'fine' (it isn't a fine).  And this argument has no legs:

The fine might be excessive for such a minor infraction, especially given the short period of time the vehicle was observed. The Defendant argues that the penalty is disproportionate, especially since the vehicle was not causing an obstruction to anyone.

Also change

'Temporary Parking Due to Car Lift Issue: The vehicle was parked temporarily due to...' 

to

Temporary Stopping Due to Car Lift Issue: The vehicle was stopped temporarily due to 

Where was this 'car lift'?

Where were you visiting?

How come they are saying you were there overnight? Did you visit twice?

If you were driving the Template Defence tells you to say so.

That paragraph is gone, changed the from Temporary Parking to Temporary Stopping.

This is the area where my car was parked and were the car lift is.

I wasn't visiting, i live in the building, the car lift is very unreliable and breaks down every other week, basically i stopped in the restricted area to unload my shopping to take up to my flat as the lift wasn't working and i got a ticket, i was only parked there for less then 5 min, aren't they meant to observe for more then 3 min? i know Councils have 10-15 min but i'm not sure about Private Companies.

On the ticket the observation time was less then 3 minutes, thats not enough to go up to 2nd floor and come back down to the car to move considering the lift in the building wasn't working either.

Coupon-mad

i live in the building.

I'd half-guessed you'd say this massively important point.

So...why have we seen nothing in your draft defence reflecting the residential PCN examples I link in the NEWBIES thread?  That's your strongest point.

Also search the forum for:

Jopson v Homeguard defence true

CanineLover

I have been searching the forum for some defences but everything i found is different then what i had come up with, im just going to use the one i posted here with the changes suggested by you as i am mentally drained from reading through so many post and defences i lost all concentration. Any other thoughts on my defence ? 

Coupon-mad

I didn't suggest to 'search the forum for defences'.  I signposted you to read the two that are linked in the NEWBIES thread.

No searching needed for those.

You MUST use some words copied from a residential defence. You can't leave your main point about primacy of contract / being an authorised resident unsaid.

The only thing I suggested you search for were exact keywords that I gave you to copy & paste, to learn about and use the Jopson case. It's very relevant.

CanineLover

Having read the tenancy agreement, there isn't any mentioning of parking in a restricted area for any reason, i'm thinking if i submit a defence based on facts from Jopson v Homeguard and it comes to submitting the evidence then i have no leg to stand on as theres nothing in the tenancy agreement. 

Le_Kirk

What it doesn't state in a tenancy agreement is as important as what is stated; if it doesn't state, for example that you need a permit, then you don't; it doesn't specifically have to state No Permit Required!