Template defence from newbies thread not worked?

Coupon-mad

Can't wait until the bulk litigation gets curtailed, among other things that will be curbed.

ChirpyChicken

Kaizen2024 said:

The reason for issue was ‘no permit’, you have not addressed this claim in your defence; only that you went swimming.

You have quoted two codes of practice, separated by a 4 year period; only the CoP at the time is relevant and who ever is reading the defence is not going to go and find a copy of the CoP to look up the quoted sections to figure out what you are claiming.

Good to see another judge taking this stance, maybe they are fed up with all the biblical templates and hooha about inadequate PoC. Perhaps they are flicking past the template and only reading the defendants own words (I know this happens regularly in hearings); as I doubt the claimant would have paid the £313 to request that the defence is struck out.

This is no different to judges on a weekly basis lambasting claimant cases.  Judges really are fed up with the awful claims and robotic "prolex" witness statements written by paralegals (who are quite simply not witnesses at all ) 
This really is the pot calling the kettle black here.  The likes of Jackson Yamba is currently having regular success on strike out application against inadequate POC's resulting in cost orders against the claimant (non tracked cases)

One wonders why the legal services for parking firms are unable to get their house in order

Car1980

You are misreading the Order Kaizen. It states there is no coherent statement of facts. Which is true, because our poster has failed to add any. 

We also don't know if any "hooha" was made about the POCs. Maybe you could tell us what the particulars were because I can't see them. They might well have been perfectly adequate.

sammyb1996

I will do my draft tomorrow and post here, but just to try and respond back to everyone so far.

Yes they have stated that a permit was needed in order to park there. 

But the defence I tried to base this on is that entry signage was not visible upon entry stating a permit was needed. 

Hence the reason for me quoting BPA standards that this is in violation to and that they are meant to abide to. 

Here are the images of what I’m talking about (attached)  
(As you can see in the last image it isn’t even visible if I was to drive down the wrong side of the road towards incoming traffic) 


As you can see from both google images and my own that the sign is not visible if you enter the car park whilst driving down the road (from north side). It’s clearly only visible if you drive from the south and pass the sign. 

The only other signage visible from entry is a no “accessible parking” and welcome sign to all customers (which I was).

if anybody has any help/advice in how I can quote/state this as a “fact” without supplying images in my defence and keep it the images purely for witness statement, then I’d be appreciate the help. 

Coupon-mad

Just say it like you said it here.

Look at the linked thread and the reply there (in that thread) by Johnersh. He's a solicitor.

Draft something that incorporates what Johnersh suggested and show us.

Johnersh

Maybe worth a look at vine v LB Waltham. If the signage wasn't adequate there is no contract that the defendant agreed to or can be deemed to agree to. Mrs Vine never saw a parking sign whilst in a state of ill health.

The defence should deal with this points, whether the sign offered parking and whether that was accepted and whether the contract entitled the claimant to recover the sums claimed (probably not).

A later WS can then deal with sightlines etc etc, whether or not the motorist on parking should have seen any additional signs, whether the signs offered parking at all etc. That is true first hand witness evidence.

sammyb1996

Hi all, 
I am just currently drafting my new defence. Looking at the original claim (photo attached). They have included interest, also a very minimal daily rate plus legal fees. Even though these may not be part of the original PCN. Are they allowed to include those fees? Is it worth disputing also as I was under the assumption you can’t include legal representative fees in claims?

thanks in advance 

Gr1pr

That £50 is allowed,  but the figure of £207.176 is made up of money charges that aren't allowed, the original pcn was £100, the £170 in the POC has had a spurious £70 added, plus inflated interest charges, so focus on those things,  not the £50, not the £35 court fee either 

sammyb1996

Gr1pr said:

That £50 is allowed,  but the figure of £207.176 is made up of money charges that aren't allowed, the original pcn was £100, the £170 in the POC has had a spurious £70 added, plus inflated interest charges, so focus on those things,  not the £50, not the £35 court fee either 

Thanks I’ve added that in to my defence. 

I have written my defence to the bullet points of the claim in order etc.

Let me know if this is good enough? What should be removed, changed or added?

thanks in advance all!

“Particulars of the Claim”

1. It is admitted that the defendant is keeper of vehicle B1TLD and attended "Car Park At DaisyField Pools Daisy Lane Blackburn BB1 5HB. 

 2. The defendant can confirm that PCN's were issued to them. 

3. The defendant denies that they breached any of "the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Permit Holders Only". The denial is based on *inadequate entry signage* at "Car Park At DaisyField Pools Daisy Lane Blackburn BB1 5HB".The signage provided by the claimant (CEL) does not account for the speed and direction of the approach of incoming vehicles. Therefore the claimant’s sign is not visible for any visitor (including the defendant), whilst entering the car park driving from the North side of Daisy Lane. Also, the entrance signage provided by the claimant does not state where “terms and conditions” can be found regarding the contract between visitor and claimant. 

The facts outlined by the defendant put the claimant in violation of the BPA Code Of practice version 8 2020. 

The only entrance signage visible and adequate was completely separate and from Half Fish stating “This Car park is for staff, customers and guests of Half Fish only”, the defendant can prove they were a customer/guest of Half Fish. There was also another visible entrance sign of  “Accessible Parking” for disabled drivers. 

Therefore the defendant denies the claim of “breach of terms” outlined by the claimant. As the defendant could not agree to the contract or be deemed to agree, set out by the claimant.  

 

“And the claimant Claims”

1&2. The defendant admits the original PCN was £100, not £170. The Claimant has added a spurious £70, plus inflated interest charges and stated “damages”. The defendant believes there is no facts or evidence of “damages” and is a clear and exaggerated attempt by the claimant to seek more funds from the defendant.  

 

ChirpyChicken

Remove point 2 
Make point 3 more succinct.  Less waffle.