VARS Technology claim – Starbucks car park – signage unclear – defence help please

coffeewoman1092

Okay, thank you.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

In terms of the defence at paragraph 3, do you think that they will likely side with me?

Thank you

Gr1pr

Doesn't matter what we think, only a judge can determine liability

Our free advice is to try to help you to win, especially if they discontinue before before the hearing date

Your job right now is to draft a concise 2 & 3, so your 2 should have a short ending

coffeewoman1092

what do you mean 2 has a short ending? Is my paragraph 3 not concise enough?

Gr1pr

Read the comments in the 2nd paragraph in the template defence, it doesn't usually end with 'Registered Keeper'

Paragraph 3 is too long with too many splits

Post your adapted paragraph 2 and then post a concise version of your paragraph 3 below your paragraph 2, in your reply below

Coupon-mad

Just use the template defence. The other source you used - looks like AI due to a five year old Statement of Truth - is out of date and has caused some issues. You don't even need the SoT at the end as you are putting this in on MCOL which includes the SoT in the system.

There's no need to re-write the Template.

Le_Kirk

Let's start with a basic question - have you found the template defence?

coffeewoman1092

Here is my updated defence, with para 2 corrected and para 3 more concise.

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. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false ‘fee’ or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the costs of enforcement including DVLA enquiries and an automated letter chain. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant understands that the allegation relates to a vehicle allegedly overstaying a ninety-minute free parking period in a customer car park serving Starbucks. The driver was a genuine customer using the café. The signage states “90 minutes free parking” but does not clearly explain that customers must enter their vehicle registration into a tablet inside the premises to validate their stay. The Defendant had been a regular customer at this location for approximately a year prior to the alleged event and had parked there many times without issue. It appears that a system requiring vehicle registration via a tablet inside the café had been introduced, however this requirement was not clearly communicated by the signage. The Defendant has since observed that entering a registration grants parking until 23:59 on the same day, demonstrating that the parking scheme operates differently than the signage suggests and that the terms relied upon by the Claimant were unclear.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract there must be an offer, acceptance and valuable consideration. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 mandates a test of fairness and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and consumer notices. On the limited information provided, this case appears to involve unclear terms and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the adequacy and prominence of the signage relied upon.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement.

6. To impose a parking charge there must be both a breach and a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss together with adequate notice of the charge and relevant obligations. None of which have been demonstrated. This charge arises from unclear signage and a confusing parking system and is therefore fully distinguished from the circumstances in Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of the Beavis judgment confirming that the parking charge already incorporates the operator’s enforcement costs.

8. The parking industry has been subject to significant criticism by Parliament resulting in the
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 which seeks to curb abusive practices including inflated debt recovery fees.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the claim exceeds the maximum sum recoverable.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 and asks the Court to consider the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in bringing an exaggerated claim.

As there is another claim under my partners name but I was the driver, do I just remove 'and driver' from para 2, and keep all the other details the same? As it says 'the defendant' was a genuine customer in para 3, which wouldn't be entirely correct with my partners defence.

Thank you again.

Coupon-mad

That's not the Template Defence from para 5 onwards. Stop hacking at it with AI; you are losing important points!

coffeewoman1092

Apologies I had copied the wrong thing. I will use para 5 onwards from the template. In terms of the rest of it, is that okay?

Le_Kirk

Just a question on your paragraph #3. Your paragraph #2 claims to be keeper and driver but in paragraph #3, you state that the driver was a genuine customer, shouldn't that be "the defendant was a genuine customer" as they are one and the same.