Received Claim Form - Need help!!!

Hi all

Could someone let me know if the above defence is good enough to hand in? Any help is extremely appreciated.

Thank you in advance

Thank you for your help.

I am actually not sure when the PPC took over enforcement, all I know is that the driver had parked at that location numerous times and never had any trouble until this ticket.

I have changed it to the following - does this defence now look ready?

FAO: CCBC
Claim No: XXXXXXXX
Issue Date: XX XX XX

Statement of Defence

I am X, the defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘Roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘Roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

This has prejudiced the Defendant's chance to understand the cause of action in this case. On this basis, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

The defendant made a valid appeal to the initial PCN which should have resulted in the claimant cancelling charge and no further action being taken. No response to the appeal was received.

This is a clear failure by the claimant to engage with the defendant in order to understand the facts and narrow the issues. Such conduct is a breach of Practice Direction - Pre action conduct and protocols and has resulted in this unnecessary and unmeritorious litigation, which is an abuse of court process and against the public interest.

The claimant states that the vehicle in question was parked in a "restricted area". This is denied.
- The driver parked the vehicle during the hours of complete darkness and did not see any signs
- Even if any signs were present they were not illuminated meaning even if the driver did see them (which he/she did not) they would not have been able to read an unlit sign in full darkness
- a sign which cannot be seen or read by a consumer cannot form a contract. This is trite law and firmly established in the Consumer Rights Act 2015

The ticket was issued at 23:03 in the month of October, and in the month of October the time of sunset would have been approximately 5 hours before the ticket was issued. There is also no additional lighting provided by the sign that was closest to the driver, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible to see.

In the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant online, it is very apparent that the ticketing officer at the time had taken advantage of using flash photography and possibly changing the exposure of the photo to incorrectly show the amount of light provided in the area. This is evidenced by the fact that both the number plates (on two separate vehicles) and the taillights on the car in question appear to be reflecting a light source. Another photograph provided by the Claimant shows the front of the car, in which you can clearly see that no light source is provided in the area that the sign is located in. It also shows a more accurate representation of how dark the area is as the majority of the light from the flash of the camera is blocked by the vehicle in question.

The sign located near the Defendants car also appears to be bent in a direction that faces away from the driver’s view upon exiting the vehicle. This is also shown in the Claimants photographic evidence. Due to the lack of lighting and the fact the sign was bent, the Defendant does not believe that any contract would have been entered as the signage was not adequate, visible or clear. For the reasons listed above, the Defendant believes that contract was formed.

Even if the court finds that signs prohibiting parking were not perpendicular to the vehicle, it is confidently argued that these cannot have been prominent. Therefore, no contract has been formed. Even if the court finds there were prominent signs, the Defendant avers that a prohibition on parking cannot also be a contractual offer to do that which is forbidden, for a 'charge’.

Even if the court is minded to believe that this site could, in theory, charge money for an issue such as this one then in any case, this would be an issue falling only under the tort of trespass, a matter which remains in the gift of the landowner themselves only.

The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.