VCS Permit only private land Charge notice now at court stage

My second draft. Again I welcome any corrections including anything that needs to be deleted/added. Should I add anything about POFA2102? Thank you

DEFENCE

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter.

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a xxxxxxxxxxxx motor vehicle registration number xxxx xxx that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice (OR a Charge Notice as mentioned in the particulars of the claim) by the
Claimant.


2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.


3. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.


3. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.


4. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but appears to indicate a Cut and Paste approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant's duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.


5. Additionally such vague Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.


6. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered KEEPER of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged event it is averred that the Defendant was not the DRIVER at the relevant time and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.


7. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.



8. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges (or a Charge Notice as mentioned in the particulars of this current claim) and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.



9. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.



10. If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the KEEPER liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a relevant obligation; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a relevant obligation existed.



11. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence, or otherwise, of a relevant obligation the court is invited to strike the matter out.



12. On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather unique interpretation of the judgement in Elliott v Loake and endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered KEEPER is the DRIVER where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.



13. I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.



14. The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty due to a criminal matter and on a surfeit of evidence (including forensic evidence) of being the DRIVER at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially it was this evidence that proved the case and identity of the DRIVER therefore not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.



15. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient to the DRIVER in terms of their distribution, visability (especially when seated inside a motor vehicle) and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.



16. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimants signs that the most onerous term ; the £100 parking charge notice ; is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR Red Hand Rule.


17. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.


18. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

19. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.


Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed XX XXXXX

Hi again, I have submitted my defence via email. Could someone tell me if I need to still go through the mcol procedure regarding defence by just stating in the online box that I have sent my defence by email etc or do I just leave it now and await further proceedings. Thanks