Claim form Recieved but no letter of claim prior to this

wonteverpay

Thanks CM, So to confirm: replace paragraphs 9 and 10 with the £30 defence, add my own defence in section 3 making note that the machine gave reference that payment was for parking in public space and im good to go?

Coupon-mad

Replace paras 9 and 10? Why are you removing two paragraphs from the template?

wonteverpay

In the post i have found with the £30 defence (6th July) you note;

"Add this (BELOW) to REPLACE the old paras 9 and 10 from the Template about the DLUHC, and remove para 11 from the template as well, as it is old news which I will delete within days:"

The template currently doesn't have para 11 as it has now been removed so i'm reading it as Paras 9 and 10 from the standard defence template needs to be replaced with the Paras 9 and 10 noted in that post?

Car1980

A-ha. All the staff areas are signed at the entrance. Except this one. It's public in the foreground and staff beyond the speed bump. But no way of telling. You could certainly inadvertently park in the spaces on the left.

Coupon-mad

wonteverpay said:

In the post i have found with the £30 defence (6th July) you note;

"Add this (BELOW) to REPLACE the old paras 9 and 10 from the Template about the DLUHC, and remove para 11 from the template as well, as it is old news which I will delete within days:"

The template currently doesn't have para 11 as it has now been removed so i'm reading it as Paras 9 and 10 from the standard defence template needs to be replaced with the Paras 9 and 10 noted in that post?

That post was talking about paragraphs from the old 30 paragraph defence! No.

I simply wanted you to find the wording (only the wording) to add to your para 3. Not read out of date replies that are no longer relevant.

wonteverpay

Thanks CM.

So to confirm standard 10 para defence, Para 3 I'm going to add the following;

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 19/03/2025, as alleged. The signage displayed around the site is confusing to say the least, with carparks having both public and staff parking signs displayed with no clear boundaries as to which section is allocated to either public or staff. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms of which is further backed up by photographic evidence of payment for parking on the alleged contravention date and time that clearly states payment was made for “public1” car park. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £130 on private land) where there were no damages incurred whatsoever and also where a payment was made at the time.

3.1 This claim is unfair and inflated and the Defendant has seen no evidence that any 'parking charge' or additional imaginary sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant now routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added at the eleventh hour to each PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban add-ons and despite case law against them (on this point)  in ParkingEye v Somerfield. In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in recent months, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £30 immediately prior to proceedings. I believe that sum was unlikely to have been part of the alleged contract on the signs.

3.2 The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim with a disproportionate and impermissible sum, is double recovery (given they are also claiming 'legal fees') and is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £130 parking charge, as this exceeds the maximum amount allowed by trade bodies, which is capped at £100. The Defendant denies knowing about, let alone 'agreeing' to any contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £130 and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Yep. Ironically, you may have to remove paragraph 10 to make it fit and save on MCOL.

Then I would renumber it all before submitting the defence. Normal numbering looks better. Don't forget to hit SUBMIT DEFENCE.

THEN please come back in August to join us in responding to the current Public Consultation.

wonteverpay

Thanks CM - We got there in the end

And absolutely. This forum along with yourself has been a great help.

1505grandad

"The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 19/03/2025, as alleged."

Just checking  -  is that the date of the parking event?  -  (redacted on posted copy of claim form).

Le_Kirk

The issue date of the claim form has been redacted; how can anybody give you guidance on the AoS and defence submission dates?