First claim defence vs euro car parks

za1ntc

Have received the following.

Here is my defense:

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 not the driver.

3.  The Claimant did not display, visible, well-lit and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to the parking bays.

3.1 There was no signage close to the where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, nor were any restrictions applied in the car park made obvious due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the vehicle was parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert motorists.

3.2  It is stated in the British Parking (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP), version 9, 2024 that: 19.2 Signs within controlled land displaying the specific parking terms applying must be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.

3.3  The CoP further states that: Appendix B Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.

3.4  The Claimant's signage, detailing the terms of parking purported to have been breached, was deficient in number, distribution and lighting from the sight of the alleged contravention to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

3.5  For the reasons above, the signage is therefore incapable for the purpose of forming the basis of a contract, and the Claimant has failed to comply with their obligations within the BPA Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

3.6 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. No PCN was issued on 05/06/2021. Whilst the Defendant was the keeper, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations.

Am I good to submit this?
today is the final day for submission, any advise is appreciated.
thank you

KeithP

za1ntc said:

today is the final day for submission, any advise is appreciated.

Almost right, 4pm today was the deadline for filing your Defence.
You are now in a race. The Claimant is free to seek a Default Judgment against you at anytime.

Suggest you file a Defence at your very earliest opportunity. Forget about using the full forum Defence.
Instead file a cutdown version - one that is short enough to be filed via MCOL.

za1ntc

KeithP said:

za1ntc said:

today is the final day for submission, any advise is appreciated.

Almost right, 4pm today was the deadline for filing your Defence.
You are now in a race. The Claimant is free to seek a Default Judgment against you at anytime.

Suggest you file a Defence at your very earliest opportunity. Forget about using the full forum Defence.
Instead file a cutdown version - one that is short enough to be filed via MCOL.

hi keith, should i choose yes for counterclaim on the mcol defense?
thank you

KeithP

za1ntc said:

KeithP said:

za1ntc said:

today is the final day for submission, any advise is appreciated.

Almost right, 4pm today was the deadline for filing your Defence.
You are now in a race. The Claimant is free to seek a Default Judgment against you at anytime.

Suggest you file a Defence at your very earliest opportunity. Forget about using the full forum Defence.
Instead file a cutdown version - one that is short enough to be filed via MCOL.

hi keith, should i choose yes for counterclaim on the mcol defense?
thank you

No, and there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.  

za1ntc

KeithP said:

za1ntc said:

KeithP said:

za1ntc said:

today is the final day for submission, any advise is appreciated.

Almost right, 4pm today was the deadline for filing your Defence.
You are now in a race. The Claimant is free to seek a Default Judgment against you at anytime.

Suggest you file a Defence at your very earliest opportunity. Forget about using the full forum Defence.
Instead file a cutdown version - one that is short enough to be filed via MCOL.

hi keith, should i choose yes for counterclaim on the mcol defense?
thank you

No, and there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.  

defence submitted, had to cut it down heavily, hopefully it gets accepted, thank you for your help

Coupon-mad

It has been accepted if it went in.

Did you use most of the template defence? What did you remove?

Now just follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask us about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

See you in a few months. Consult the 12 steps for everything in between please.

Le_Kirk

I know you have submitted your defence but it might be worth considering when it come to witness statement time an adjustment to your story.  You claim you were RK but not driver.  As a not driver, you seem to have a lot of information about the car park and the signage.  Probably best to state that you researched the car park after having received the PCN to discover the poor signage.

za1ntc

Le_Kirk said:

I know you have submitted your defence but it might be worth considering when it come to witness statement time an adjustment to your story.  You claim you were RK but not driver.  As a not driver, you seem to have a lot of information about the car park and the signage.  Probably best to state that you researched the car park after having received the PCN to discover the poor signage.

I know who the driver was, but it definitely wasnt me, I would rather not reveal who the driver was, would i have to reveal that information if it went to court? Also this ticket is from a genting casino car park where you have to enter your reg once you go inside to get free parking. Will keep that in mind, will say i researched it completely.

za1ntc

Coupon-mad said:

It has been accepted if it went in.

Did you use most of the template defence? What did you remove?

Now just follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask us about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

See you in a few months. Consult the 12 steps for everything in between please.

the template defence was around 210 lines, i had to cut it down to 120 lines to fit it into the mcol submission box. however when i download the pdf file of the defence submission it seems they have cut it down further to maybe 80 lines, i removed most of  the 'ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished' and the conclusion section.

Coupon-mad

Sounds fine.  And no you don't have to name the driver.

Don't let a Judge tell you otherwise.

za1ntc

What date do I have until to fill this questionnaire ? How is best to fill it ? How best to send it ?


thank you