Minster Baywatch / Gladstones Unpaid Charge

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How come people don't just copy the bargepole defences in the NEWBIES thread without being told to do that on a thread? It is so easy to adapt them, so it amazes me when people say they are writing their own/have no idea, despite seeing the NEWBIES thread, and making it so much harder that it need be.

How much clearer can I make it in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread than saying 'here's a concise defence to copy & adapt'?

Its quite a daunting task if you have never had to do anything like this before, its easy to read too much into it and make it more than a chore than it has to be. I think, I will know more depending on the response I get when I submit my defence on here.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No:


BETWEEN:



-and-
(Defendant)



DEFENCE

The facts are whilst using the car park situated at XXXX we incured a "Parking Charge", the alleged offence was "Vehicle was not authorised to use the car park". It is denied that any contract was agreed or offered in prominent large lettering which resulted in the Defendant believing the Car PArk was Free to use.

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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXX car park on XX/XX/XX.

3.The Particulars of Claim do not specify the legal basis upon which the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the small 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.

6. The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore illegible in poor natural light in any event.


###NO LBC###
7. Due to the sparse details on the 'PCN' (taken to be a scam piece of junk mail, since it did not come from any Authority or the Police and arrived weeks later) and the equally lacking and embarrassing Particulars of Claim (POC) and the complete lack of any Letter before Claim, this Claimant afforded the Defendant no opportunity to take stock, obtain data, copy letters, and images of the contract on signage. There has been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

9. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date