*UPDATE* Case Dismissed!

Kaizen2024

There is nothing inherently incorrect about an "internet defence". Research via the internet in this day and age is completely standard for everyone, especially for litigants in person. 

Agreed, but there is no reason why they cannot delete sections that have zero to do with the case in hand.

Kaizen2024

At the end of the day this is all contract law and we have a system where a claimant can make a claim based on a contract and are under no obligation to provide a copy of the bloody contract! 

The claim is based on the contract between the motorist and the operator; not the landowner which is largely irrelevant (see case law ref offering to sell Buckingham Palace).

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

At the end of the day this is all contract law and we have a system where a claimant can make a claim based on a contract and are under no obligation to provide a copy of the bloody contract! 

The claim is based on the contract between the motorist and the operator; not the landowner which is largely irrelevant (see case law ref offering to sell Buckingham Palace).

This may well be true, but the person selling Buckingham Palace isn't signed up to KADOE or an AOS are they?

The point isn't about the landowner contract (blah blah, confidential, blah blah) but the apparent inability of claimants to provide a copy of the contract which they are relying on to bring the claim.  It cannot be assumed that a Defendant is fully aware of the details of a specific parking event or can even recall something from 5+ years in the past, the Claim must set out the case sufficiently so that the Defendant can make an informed decision.  Without that detail how can they possibly respond to specific allegations?

Nellymoser

Kaizen2024 said:

More and more judges are striking out poor POC's. You have to wonder why legal firms aee unable to get it right. It isnt rocket science.

It’s a minor technicality as the motorist will be fully aware of what the claim is about from previous correspondence. 

@Kaizen2024 you're ignoring the fact that this OP was not fully aware as they'd received no previous correspondence. 

Char27 said:

I haven’t had 1 letter telling me about a parking charge or any subsequent letters. 
Address is correct so I’m confused as to why I haven’t had any letters. 

An account @Kaizen2024 you must have seen posted numerous times during your time on here, CAG and any other parking forums/groups you frequent. 

It's extremely concerning why the industry doesn't want to prove they sent pcn letters, preferring to blame Royal Mail or stupidly suggest the keeper needs to prove they didn't receive them. So concerning a petition was even set up about it.

Car1980

Kaizen2024 said:

There is nothing inherently incorrect about an "internet defence". Research via the internet in this day and age is completely standard for everyone, especially for litigants in person. 

Agreed, but there is no reason why they cannot delete sections that have zero to do with the case in hand.

Because threads would go on forever. "Should I delete this? Should I keep this in? Oh, no I have a default CCJ."

Not everyone is as clever as you Kaizen! The ones that are will just do what you suggest off their own backs.

ChirpyChicken

Kaizen2024 said:

One wonders why the legal firms in the parking world are so aggressive and confrontational. This simply isnt the case in other areas of litigation.

Fighting fire with fire I guess, a lot of forum guided correspondence is extremely derogatory and aggressive; particularly the ‘Snotty Letters’ encouraged on CAG.

I am no fan of CAG what so ever.
However there is no need for the aggressive attitude of legal firms who act in this field
You don't see it with the likes of Lowells who are bulk litigators

Parking firms also appear to get very disgruntled when a case goes against them. There are some who are like a dog with a bone

As another poster has said. We know which firms discontinue and which dont

As you are aware some firms have no further input when cases have gone over for litigation (and are not consulted on discontinuations).  That is unheard of in other fields. 

ChirpyChicken

Kaizen2024 said:

More and more judges are striking out poor POC's. You have to wonder why legal firms aee unable to get it right. It isnt rocket science.

It’s a minor technicality as the motorist will be fully aware of what the claim is about from previous correspondence. Also the scale of the problem with unpaid Parking Charge requires claims to be issued in bulk and it’s difficult to write bespoke PoC for each claim on this basis; advances in technology will soon change this though.

Disagree
There is a no excuse for a poor POC. Previous correspondence does not negate the need for proper particulars

Le_Kirk

I hope the OP managed to write and submit a suitable defence before 26 June as the judge's order stated. Since we haven't heard from OP since 21 June, we don't know.

Car1980

Kaizen2024 said:

At the end of the day this is all contract law and we have a system where a claimant can make a claim based on a contract and are under no obligation to provide a copy of the bloody contract! 

The claim is based on the contract between the motorist and the operator; not the landowner which is largely irrelevant (see case law ref offering to sell Buckingham Palace).

Who mentioned the landowner?

Show me a PCN with the exact contract between the motorist and the operator.

Show me a debt collection letter with the exact contract between the motorist and the operator.

Show me a Letter Before Claim with the exact contract between the motorist and the operator.

Show me a court claim where the Claimant has sent the Defendant the exact contract between the motorist and the operator.

Show me a mediation phone call where the Defendant is in possession of a copy of the exact contract between the motorist and the operator.

Which leaves... the 1% of cases where the motorist is sent it within a Witness Statement! 

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

At the end of the day this is all contract law and we have a system where a claimant can make a claim based on a contract and are under no obligation to provide a copy of the bloody contract! 

The claim is based on the contract between the motorist and the operator; not the landowner which is largely irrelevant (see case law ref offering to sell Buckingham Palace).

Often relied upon. But no cigar.

That case is totally irrelevant to parking charges because KADOE says PPCs 'must' only act under prior landowner authority. They can't just put up signs anywhere, regardless. I've blown an Oxford educated barrister out of the water when he tried to rely on that 'case law'. He was opening and shutting his mouthlike a goldfish. An amusing day out.

the scale of the problem with unpaid Parking Charges

What 'problem' would that be? That more people are no longer falling for scam PCNs?

Don't tell us: "£100 is no longer a deterrent",  We love the predictability of this industry. It's what makes them so easy to beat. LOL! Keep 'em coming... only, maybe not on this thread which has gone off topic.

I go off grid in Glastonbury for a bit of mad musical distraction and this is what I find on my return.

I was really hoping this person has rescued it. Fingers crossed he/she did.

Anyway: back on topic for @Char27

I hope this OP put in the bespoke defence suggested by @Johnersh?

Johnersh said:

Look, this is very simple. The o/p needs to do a bespoke defence. 

There is no need to cite every bit of case law in a defence, because the law can be referenced in oral submissions or a skelly prior to the hearing.

The o/p needs to respond to the numbered paragraphs admitting, denying (where you can prove an alternative), putting to proof (where you can't necessarily prove an alternative but challenge Cs ability to prove their case) or to aver (suggest an alternative factual case).

This, you may have 

1. Save that it is admitted that D is the keeper of vehicle X, paragraph X is not admitted. The defendant has no recollection as to whether s/he drove the vehicle to location z or at all on [date]. The claimant is put to proof that the defendant was the driver on the date alleged.

2. The defendant avers that s/he normally travels travels to X [specify frequency]. Having visited on [date] s/he would have had no need to re-visit.

3. Paragraph Z is denied. The claimant never received a notice to keeper and was supplied with the same only after court proceedings were commenced. The claimant is put to proof that such notice was properly served.


...

You get the point. There aren't that many paras to work through. But in the example above, even if limited an alternative case as to what did occur, who may have been driving, adequacy of signs can at least be stated (as applicable).