ECP MCOL Defence - AI Generated

ParkingIdiot69

Long time listener, first time caller here. After receiving a court claim I got chat-gpt to write the following defence. I plan to incorporate the defence template from the other thread into this but would be interested to know peoples thoughts on the AI generated version (there are some similarities between this and the template). And whether this is a viable option for drafting responses to these claims.

1. Introduction
1.1 The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the
sum claimed or any amount at all.
1.2 The Defendant asserts that the alleged parking charge is
unenforceable due to the Claimant’s failure to provide a
functioning payment facility.

2. Background
2.1 On xx/xx/2023, the Defendant parked at Treaty Centre
Hounslow, a car park advertised as pay-on-exit.
2.2 The Defendant entered the car park on the understanding that
payment would be made upon leaving, as per the signage and the
nature of the system.
2.3 Upon exiting, the Defendant attempted to pay the required
fee, but the payment machine was out of order, displaying an error
message and not accepting payment.
2.4 The Defendant could not pre-pay because the car park operates
on a pay-on-exit basis, meaning the fee is calculated upon
departure.
2.5 The Defendant acted in good faith and attempted to comply
with the terms but was prevented by the Claimant’s failure to
provide a working payment machine.

3. Frustration of Contract
3.1 The Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment facility
rendered it impossible for the Defendant to perform their
contractual obligation to pay.
3.2 Under common law, a contract is discharged when performance
becomes impossible through no fault of the Defendant.
3.3 The principle of frustration of contract is supported by case
law such as Taylor v Caldwell (1863), which establishes that a
contract is discharged when performance becomes impossible through
no fault of the parties.

4. Breach of Consumer Rights and Unfair Terms
4.1 Under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must
be fair and transparent. It is unfair to penalise a consumer for
non-payment when the Claimant’s own failure prevented compliance.
4.2 The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice
requires operators to maintain payment systems. The Claimant
breached this obligation.
4.3 The Claimant has not provided machine maintenance or audit
logs to prove the machine was operational. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this.

5. No Contract Formed
5.1 A contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. The
Defendant could not provide consideration (payment) because the
Claimant failed to provide the means stated in the contract
(signage).
5.2 Any purported contract is void for impossibility of
performance.
5.3 In contrast to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where
clear and transparent terms were upheld, here the terms were
contradictory and performance was rendered impossible.

6. Failure to Mitigate Loss
6.1 The Claimant suffered no genuine loss. The Defendant attempted
to pay but was prevented from doing so by the Claimant’s
failure.

7. Inconsistencies and Lack of Clarity
7.1 The Claimant’s appeal response contains contradictory
statements regarding the nature of the car park. It refers to the
site as both “pay on exit” and “pay and display”, which are
fundamentally different systems.
7.2 This inconsistency demonstrates that the terms were not clear
or transparent, contrary to the requirements of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015.
7.3 In the aforementioned appeal response, the Claimant asserts
that “machines are working fine” without providing any evidence
such as maintenance logs or audit reports. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this assertion.
7.4 The Claimant's appeal response claims that there was a RingGo
app payment option available, yet the signage contained no mention
of RingGo or instructions for its use. A consumer cannot be bound
by hidden or undisclosed terms. The omission of RingGo from
signage renders any alleged obligation to use it invalid. This
omission breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice
and further supports that the terms were not adequately
communicated.

8. Conclusion
8.1 Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim
discloses no cause of action and should be dismissed in its
entirety.
8.2 The Defendant reserves the right to claim costs pursuant to
CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

Gr1pr

Probably too long,  stick to the template defence by coupon mad,  no AI, just intelligent people, same as used by all the others on here 

Save the explanations and your AI text above for your Witness Statement next year

kryten3000

AI LLM and legal documents is not a good combination.

Coupon-mad

ParkingIdiot69 said:

Long time listener, first time caller here. After receiving a court claim I got chat-gpt to write the following defence. I plan to incorporate the defence template from the other thread into this but would be interested to know peoples thoughts on the AI generated version (there are some similarities between this and the template). And whether this is a viable option for drafting responses to these claims.

1. Introduction
1.1 The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the
sum claimed or any amount at all.
1.2 The Defendant asserts that the alleged parking charge is
unenforceable due to the Claimant’s failure to provide a
functioning payment facility.

2. Background
2.1 On xx/xx/2023, the Defendant parked at Treaty Centre
Hounslow, a car park advertised as pay-on-exit.
2.2 The Defendant entered the car park on the understanding that
payment would be made upon leaving, as per the signage and the
nature of the system.
2.3 Upon exiting, the Defendant attempted to pay the required
fee, but the payment machine was out of order, displaying an error
message and not accepting payment.
2.4 The Defendant could not pre-pay because the car park operates
on a pay-on-exit basis, meaning the fee is calculated upon
departure.
2.5 The Defendant acted in good faith and attempted to comply
with the terms but was prevented by the Claimant’s failure to
provide a working payment machine.

3. Frustration of Contract
3.1 The Claimant’s failure to provide a working payment facility
rendered it impossible for the Defendant to perform their
contractual obligation to pay.
3.2 Under common law, a contract is discharged when performance
becomes impossible through no fault of the Defendant.
3.3 The principle of frustration of contract is supported by case
law such as Taylor v Caldwell (1863), which establishes that a
contract is discharged when performance becomes impossible through
no fault of the parties.

4. Breach of Consumer Rights and Unfair Terms
4.1 Under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must
be fair and transparent. It is unfair to penalise a consumer for
non-payment when the Claimant’s own failure prevented compliance.
4.2 The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice
requires operators to maintain payment systems. The Claimant
breached this obligation.
4.3 The Claimant has not provided machine maintenance or audit
logs to prove the machine was operational. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this.

5. No Contract Formed
5.1 A contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. The
Defendant could not provide consideration (payment) because the
Claimant failed to provide the means stated in the contract
(signage).
5.2 Any purported contract is void for impossibility of
performance.
5.3 In contrast to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where
clear and transparent terms were upheld, here the terms were
contradictory and performance was rendered impossible.

6. Failure to Mitigate Loss
6.1 The Claimant suffered no genuine loss. The Defendant attempted
to pay but was prevented from doing so by the Claimant’s
failure.

7. Inconsistencies and Lack of Clarity
7.1 The Claimant’s appeal response contains contradictory
statements regarding the nature of the car park. It refers to the
site as both “pay on exit” and “pay and display”, which are
fundamentally different systems.
7.2 This inconsistency demonstrates that the terms were not clear
or transparent, contrary to the requirements of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015.
7.3 In the aforementioned appeal response, the Claimant asserts
that “machines are working fine” without providing any evidence
such as maintenance logs or audit reports. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of this assertion.
7.4 The Claimant's appeal response claims that there was a RingGo
app payment option available, yet the signage contained no mention
of RingGo or instructions for its use. A consumer cannot be bound
by hidden or undisclosed terms. The omission of RingGo from
signage renders any alleged obligation to use it invalid. This
omission breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice
and further supports that the terms were not adequately
communicated.

8. Conclusion
8.1 Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim
discloses no cause of action and should be dismissed in its
entirety.
8.2 The Defendant reserves the right to claim costs pursuant to
CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

Start again with the Template Defence. I only leave people one paragraph to write & I tell everyone what to put!

Or you could copy & very easily adapt any recent Euro Car Parks DCB Legal defence.

You don't need Chat GPT or similar. It doesn't know what it's doing.