bw legal - Final demand from Link parking

Gr1pr

Login to MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online,  as explained in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

Then start drafting your defence as in the defence template thread in announcements,  after studying the first post carefully 

Donuts0409

Thank you so much for this and your quick responses Gr1pr. I also noticed your like Coupon-mad - absolute legend on here. AOS done! Now, just trying to get my head round the defence. I'm unsure what the correct template is as there a few and varying comments. 

I don't know what to use. So sorry.

Donuts0409

There's just so much wording and I'm unsure what to use etc.

I know it's simple for others but this is a minefield for me. I'm also quite scared of getting it wrong.

Coupon-mad

Please remove the template defence as it isn't required to show it on threads. Delete that post please as it's making your thread long and will put people off. We don't have to mark our own homework.

Only show us your facts paragraph.

Donuts0409

Coupon-mad said:

Please remove the template defence as it isn't required to show it on threads. Delete that post please as it's making your thread long and will put people off. We don't have to mark our own homework.

Only show us your facts paragraph.

Sorry - I don't know how to use it. What to keep, what to change etc.

Le_Kirk

You change the ending of paragraph 2 and refute the POC in paragraph 3. There is guidance to help in the defence template and by searching the forum to see what others wrote (particularly defences that went on to win).

Donuts0409

Okay, I have tried my best to word this defence (below). If anyone can give me some pointers, I'd have great appreciation. @Coupon-mad - I hope I did you proud? If not, let me have it.

Thank you all so so so much for your help on this. 

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. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and probable driver of vehicle registration mark                which is the subject of these proceedings.

3. It is admitted that on 23/08/2021 and 26/09/2024 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at                              because this was the defendant’s home, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

3.1 I appealed and they refused to cancel. 

Frustration of Contract

4. Most of the bays that have [Landowner} marked on them also have disabled markings, for this reason the vehicle was parked in another bay that was thought to be owned by [Landowner] due to the signage all the way up leading to the 3 bays that are outside the building of the defendant and end before the next building. This is clearly a case of 'frustration of contract'. Further, as per the findings in the authority of Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] it was found that there was no entrance signage at a residential site. Unmarked bays where the defendant received their initial PCN are in place but have signage far back from the road with indistinguishable varying wording.  Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries, building materials. Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for 4 years hoping to profit even further.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

5. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where permits were required without prior notice. Permission to park had been granted to the Defendant within communal bays with no specification of permits or zones allotted by signage, which then permits the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the communal parking areas, without limitation as to ownership of vehicle or the user of the vehicle. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

6. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016]. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant ‘upon entry’.
7.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
7.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'recovery costs' as vaguely stated in the original template POC dated 2025.

Coupon-mad

That's good.

We are now using a much shorter template defence that should fit in the Defence Box on MCOL, if your extra lines aren't too much.

Have a look at the new version. You may have to shorten your bit to make it fit. We are no longer advising to email defences but make sure you hit SUBMIT once you are happy that you've fitted it all in.

Lose some lines if needed.

No gaps between paragraphs. Obviously no headings needed if using the bespoke defence box.

Donuts0409

Coupon-mad said:

That's good.

We are now using a much shorter template defence that should fit in the Defence Box on MCOL, if your extra lines aren't too much.

Have a look at the new version. You may have to shorten your bit to make it fit. We are no longer advising to email defences but make sure you hit SUBMIT once you are happy that you've fitted it all in.

Lose some lines if needed.

No gaps between paragraphs. Obviously no headings needed if using the bespoke defence box.

This feels like a grade 9 - thanks @Coupon-mad - I am searching for the shortened version and will work on it to submit on Friday! 

Thank you everyone for your input. I'll keep you posted. Let's stop these rouge-traders from profiting off of us.

Gr1pr

Top of the forum, same place where the old long version template was

Use the new short version and adapt it with your couple of paragraphs from the long version if you adapted the old defence,  so a hybrid of 122 lines or less