county court - old address

Thanks for the help guys, we'll acknowledge the claim and go from there

will this be ok? it's a complete copy and paste job, but it fits perfectly with what happened here

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing.!
The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and!
complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from!
the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the!
Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of!
these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the!
unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of!
any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of!
statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect!
of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further!
notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action!
correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with!
the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the!
registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXXX which is the!
subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with xxxxx
with 2 named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on 16th of April 2016 the Defendant's!
vehicle was parked at xxxxx

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.!
The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action!
correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver.!
The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to!
pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions!
set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of!
Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by!
way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as!
described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the!
registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the!
relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any!
such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there!
is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that!
the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the!
vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking!
firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have!
made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such!
provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made!
to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to!
oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited!
circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those!
provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her!
vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not!
permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to!
park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above!
mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and!
leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the!
parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was!
an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the!
lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The!
lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant!
allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership!
of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display!
a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the!
Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to!
park had been given.7. The Defendant avers that the!
operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights!
enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking!
easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted!
where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon!
the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard!
Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana!
Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be!
referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this!
matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of!
the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a!
lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v!
Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to!
consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of!
commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties!
imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon!
entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter!
was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above,!
inadequate. 8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage!
was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to!
reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the!
Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s!
("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the!
Claimant was a signatory; and 8.1.3. The signage contained!
particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention!
of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in!
J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 - 8.2. The Defendant avers!
that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings!
is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected.!
The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The!
penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context,!
with ParkingEye distinguished.9. It is denied that the Claimant!
has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that!
expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely!
undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof!
of any such entitlement. 10. It is denied that the Claimant has!
any entitlement to the sums sought.11. It is admitted that!
interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court!
on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is!
applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.