UK Car Park Management try very hard to enable Shedule 4.

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Claimant, despite being a serial litigant, has not complied with the Pre-Action Protocols.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the driver of vehicle registration ( the ' Vehicle ' ) incurred the parking charge(s)... This makes no sense and makes it impossible for the defendant to know if it is their vehicle.

4. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

5. If the Particulars of Claim do relate to a vehicle registered to the Defendant, then it is denied that they were the driver on the date of event.

6. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ,Schedule 4 , is the only law that can transfer liability of a Parking Charge Notice to the keeper of a vehicle, if the drivers identity is unknown. UK Car Park Management Ltd have not followed the strict protocols of this Act to enable keeper liability.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read , and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


I have added a new point 2 for failure to adhere to the PAP.

As Umkomaas has intimated in post #40, the legal issues and correct terminology to use are not easy to compehend for the ' person ' on the street who has received a private parking invoice.

Witness statements due this week, which I obviously have worked on,but was hanging out for a look at Gladdies. It was worth waiting for....

What they say is in the POC, is not.
Didn't respond to my reply to the two LBAs they sent. Say they didn't have to basically.
Relying on Elliott v Loake:shocked: ,
In the alternative, Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, which at no point have they addressed the fact that it has not been complied with...
Total emission of the IAS appeal that they 'won'...
And best of all I think.... ' It is evident from the site plan that there are sufficient signs. The signage at the site is clearly visible...' ' Signs are clear and unambiguous... '
They have included one picture of a very close up sign that could be anywhere. One birds eye view of the site with no signage marked and a landscape view of the site with no signage visible!
That's just after quick browse through...