Defence for Court claim (Gladstones representing) parking fine

amiemurphy_2

I have received court claim for a PCN, POC states vehicle parked in breach of the terms stipulated on the signage (the contract), address and date given. Thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN).

I have drafted the following defence:

 

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 but denies being the driver.

3. The defendant is not the sole user of the vehicle and cannot recall leaving the vehicle at this location.

I know I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time. 

Will I be required by the judge at the potential hearing to disclose who else has access to the vehicle?

I have also used all of the the other points from the template (4-30). Is there any I should remove? That aren't relevant?

Also, at a potential hearing , will I need to be able to articulate and show good understanding of all of these points of defence? As I'm not sure I can confidently do that?!

Thank you for any advice.

LDast

Unless you show us the PoC, it is difficult to advise fully. However, if it's a Gladstones issued claim, you should be using the Chan and Akande transcripts as a preliminary matter as they normally fall to comely with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Who is the Claimant?

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.

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy another Gladstones defence? None of them have the facts at paragraph 3 due to the addition of the Chan & Akande wording and transcripts.

This is explained in the Template Defence.

amiemurphy_2

@LDast here is POC

THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION  NA18YTG (THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF  THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE       SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT') AT WOODGRANGE ROAD  13-15, ON 08/03/2024  THUS INCURRING THE     PARKING CHARGE (THE 'PCN'). THE PCN WAS NOT  PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT   CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN FROM THE DEFENDANT AS  THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE    DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE   CLAIMANT CLAIMS                              £100 FOR THE PCN, £70.00 CONTRACTUAL COSTS   PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND   CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £7.53 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTSACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT   £0.04 PER DAY.                                                                                                                                          

amiemurphy_2

@KeithP

see my last comment for POC 

claim issue date was 4th nov. Filed AOS online 11th Nov. M
claimant is National Parking Services Ltd. 

amiemurphy_2

@Coupon-mad could share a link to where I could find this please? 

amiemurphy_2

@KeithP sorry. It’s National Parking Management Ltd. Not services. 

Coupon-mad

amiemurphy_2 said:

@Coupon-mad could share a link to where I could find this please? 

A link is not needed and would involve us doing the search for you, which defeats the object somewhat!

I was encouraging you to just search the forum for the words Gladstones claim (and always filter results to NEWEST).

All will be revealed and you'll see how easy it is to research anything on the forum, if you haven't used the search function as yet.

KeithP

amiemurphy_2 said:

claim issue date was 4th nov. Filed AOS online 11th Nov.

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

That's just one week 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'.

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.

This will be an easy win.

amiemurphy_2

@KeithP will this suffice? I have not cut and pasted the rest of the paragraphs from the defence template but will add them to the defence that I file. 

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 but denies being the driver.

3. The defendant is not the sole user of the vehicle and cannot recall leaving the vehicle at this location.