parking tickets defence and complaint

Christmas_Pud

1.The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable to understand the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. On the dates specified on the Particulars of Claim, no charge was incurred in relation to parking therefore the claim is without merit. The Defendant is not liable and has neither seen nor received any evidence, including a Notice to Keeper,  of a breach of parking in an unmarked bay between () as stated in the Particulars of Claim. As there has been no Notice to Keeper (the 'NTK') of this alleged breach on these dates this does not comply with the conditions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such UK Car Park Management, and BW Legal are not able to enforce keeper liability using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'). And the alternative recourse, previous to POFA, of pursuing NTK after six months plus one month has passed. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no assumption can be drawn. The court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. These facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no recollection of events on the dates stated, other than their chemotherapy began again on (). The Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at () from () because this was the Defendant’s home, where they had a residential permit to park a registered vehicle. Referring to the POC: 

The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.  The Defendant does not accept that contraventions occurred between() as alleged and denies liability. 

The Defendant does not accept the alleged breach of contract of “Not parked within a marked bay”. As all parking bays are marked in (), the Defendant does not understand the alleged contravention. 

The quantum is hugely exaggerated (a PCN of £100 for a resident) and excessive recovery costs of £140 when there were no damages incurred whatsoever. This claim includes unlawful and inflated costs; exaggerated litigation addressed by the DLUHC Code and pending regulation.

The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if the Claimant amends the allegations.

I have included a defence as well as the 'no NTK or evidence of breach' in case they file again with correct dates.
Thank you for your help.

Gr1pr

Too many paragraphs,  condense 3 into say 2 numbered paragraphs 

You can edit and delete once your status changes from newbie to forumite 

Car1980

I cannot remember if I was the driver as I had just finished four rounds of chemotherapy in three months, but admitted to being to be able to appeal."

If you do remember you were not the driver, they have omitted to make the keeper liable in their particulars. In which case you can simply use:

1. The claimant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on either of the days alleged. No contract exists between the two parties.
2. The claimant has not brought their claim under any legal mechanism that could make the defendant liable.
3. As the particulars make no case for liability, it submitted that the claim should be struck out under 3.4(2)(a) where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Christmas_Pud

Hi amended defence as above. Thank you for suggestions. Is it good to send?

Le_Kirk

All you need to do is use the template defence and slot your paragraph #3 into it.  I think it is too long and most of your story should e kept for the witness statement.

Gr1pr

Still too long, as mentioned above,  the template paragraphs are a maximum of 7 lines

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

UKCPM, B W LEGAL moneyclaim 2025

When your newbie status changes to Forumite 

Christmas_Pud

Hello, amended defence below. Thank you both for your advice.

Reasons for different defence than the template are that there are good notices in the car park, it is residential not commercial, the residential does not include de facto right to park within my lease, the main defence is no NTK issued by claimant however if they come back and amend the dates then I already have the beginning of my defence in place and just need to ask the Judge if I may add further details myself - which may be within the witness statement, but in case it is required upfront then I have included it. On a post someone said include anything you may need in the court as part of your defence. And the 'legals' say you have to ask the court to be able to add something after. Also I am saying the defence as briefly as possible but very precisely - words really matter, and context really matters. but precise makes the sentences/paragraphs longer, by necessity in legal terms with cases, addresses, dates, etc, the sentences can be very long. 

1.The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".  The Defendant has not received any evidence from the Claimant of a breach of parking in an unmarked bay # including a Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’). The claim is without merit and does not comply with the conditions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’), therefore UK Car Park Management (‘UKCPM’), and BW Legal cannot enforce keeper liability using POFA. The alternative recourse of pursuing NTK after six months plus one month has passed. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration # but was not the driver n# when the alleged contractual breach occurred, and is not liable. No contract exists between the two parties. As the Particulars make no case for liability, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

2. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. The Defendant's vehicle, registration #, was almost certainly parked at # from # because this was the Defendant’s home (with residential permit to park a registered vehicle).  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. The Defendant will not be naming the driver and no assumption can be drawn. The Defendant does not accept the alleged contraventions amounting to contractual breaches occurred # and denies liability.  The Defendant does not accept the alleged breach of contract of “Not parked within a marked bay”. There are no unmarked bays in # thus the Defendant is unable to understand the alleged contravention. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. 

Car1980

"the residential does not include de facto right to park within my lease"

No mention or no allocated space (or something else)?

Gr1pr

Spurious n in paragraph 1, sentence 7

Get rid of the air quotes in paragraph 2,   " , MCOL does not accept the following characters   "  <  >  

I presume that some hashtags will be replaced by dates or VRM details or whatever  ?

Replace the parking company name and also the lawyers to , claimant,  because UKCPM are the claimant,  with lawyers acting on their behalf,  ( no need to bring them into it  ) and you are the defendant,  so no names 

This next quote makes no sense to me 

'The alternative recourse of pursuing NTK after six months plus one month has passed.'

That aspect is a part of the KADOE contract, they must have obtained keeper details within that time in order to pursue the matter and issue an NTK PCN letter,  so to me it's irrelevant and should be removed 

Christmas_Pud

Hello @Car1980, the lease just says what you cannot do: