Court Claim

1xvp1

Good day. Thank you for the feedback. I'm hoping to send this updated defence asap. In bold, are bits that I changed based on your feedback. Did I understand correctly that the counterclaim should be placed below all the defence paragraphs? Many thanks.

FIRST 4 PARAGRAPHS OF THE TEMPLATE

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. 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 and driver.

6. The Claimant has no authority to issue parking charges on the Defendant’s property. The Defendant's leasehold agreement makes the Defendant the owner or occupier of the land in question for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant did not authorise the Claimant or any other party to pursue parking charges on this land.

7. In the alternative, the Defendant’s leasehold agreement explicitly grants permission to park on the land in question. As such, the Defendant holds primacy of contract. The Claimant's signs offer no new rights or agreements that the Defendant did not already have under the lease. Therefore, no contract can be formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. Furthermore, the management company cannot unilaterally alter the lease to create parking charges, as established in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016].

8. The relevant PCNs have already been cancelled, as evidenced by the email correspondence from the Claimant’s principal. The Claimant cannot pursue a PCN that has already been cancelled.

9. The Defendant seeks costs on an indemnity basis, given that the Claimant is pursuing a claim for cancelled PCNs, which is unreasonable. The Defendant’s contract is with the freeholder and/or management company, which has confirmed the cancellation of these charges. If the Claimant denies cancellation, the Defendant will provide evidence to substantiate this claim.

10. The Claimant may try to rely on the clause “subject to the rules and regulations of the landlord,” but case law, notably Link v Mrs P, establishes that issuing parking charges infringes on the Defendant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property. This right supersedes any such clause in the lease.

11. The Defendant relies on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which deems certain contract terms to be unfair. The interpretation of “subject to rules and regulations of the landlord” to justify additional charges for parking would fall foul of unfair contract terms, particularly clauses 10, 11, and 14 of the Act.

12. The Defendant also seeks an order forbidding the Claimant from issuing any further PCNs on the Defendant’s land and requiring the removal of any signs offering a contract to park.

13. 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.

** FOLLOWED BY REMAINING TEMPLATE PARAGRAPHS **

Counterclaim

1. The Defendant counterclaims for damages of £250 for misuse of personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The Claimant had no lawful reason to access the Defendant's DVLA data, as the Defendant's lease confirms an absolute right to park without interference. In Simon Clay v CEL, the court found that improper access to DVLA data constituted a breach of data protection laws.

2. Furthermore, given that the PCNs were subsequently cancelled, the Claimant had no legitimate interest in obtaining or retaining the Defendant's personal data. The continued processing of this data and pursuit of cancelled charges is a clear breach of data protection principles.

3. The Defendant therefore seeks £250 in damages for this breach.

Coupon-mad

You may as well seek £300 because the counterclaim fee is the same.

I wouldn't do this:  ** FOLLOWED BY REMAINING TEMPLATE PARAGRAPHS **

I would not have any of the usual blurb about the DLUHC.  Cut it out. Your defence already has everything it needs.

Head the cc

Part 20 Counterclaim

and make sure you have your statement of truth at the bottom saying 'this Defence and Part 20 Counterclaim'

AND mention the counterclaim in your email body and say you will phone CNBC fees to pay the £35 fee for the counterclaim on Monday.

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

You may as well seek £300 because the counterclaim fee is the same.

I wouldn't do this:  ** FOLLOWED BY REMAINING TEMPLATE PARAGRAPHS **

I would not have any of the usual blurb about the DLUHC.  Cut it out. Your defence already has everything it needs.

Head the cc

Part 20 Counterclaim

and make sure you have your statement of truth at the bottom saying 'this Defence and Part 20 Counterclaim'

AND mention the counterclaim in your email body and say you will phone CNBC fees to pay the £35 fee for the counterclaim on Monday.

Many thanks. I don't want to burden you further with this but could you let me know if I should I keep in the first 4 points from the template? If my defence is strong enough, should I also remove points 10-13 from my previous post?

Coupon-mad

Don't remove either of those! Just no need to add the rest of the usual Template Defence as your 10-13 covers it well.

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

Don't remove either of those! Just no need to add the rest of the usual Template Defence as your 10-13 covers it well.

Thank you for your help. I've now emailed the defence and counterclaim and received an autoconfirmation. On Monday I will contact CNBC to pay the counterclaim fee.

1xvp1

Good morning. I'm slightly confused as to which phone number to use to pay the counterclaim fee. Tried search on the forums but struggled to find specifics. Not seeing any numbers here either: https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

ChirpyChicken

Just ring the CNBC fees number. It's minor.

1xvp1

ChirpyChicken said:

Just ring the CNBC fees number. It's minor.

All paid now thank you. Was a bit of an experience - 45 minutes waiting, then 2 minutes to actually give my details for payment. They also asked "how much I'd like to pay" which threw me off for a moment but I clarified it was counterclaim fee of £35. 

1xvp1

Good morning. Nothing yet from the claimant or court, however, MCOL website in the field with available options now has the following:

"Available options

A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time."

Nothing else seems to have changed. Is this unusual, or normal when defence is received?

Car1980

I believe that's a court backlog issue where they have just temporarily frozen the case whilst their get their ducks in a row.