County Court Defence

Hi there,
Just over two years ago my vehicle was parked in a car park which contained both "pay and display" spaces and "free for 1-hour" spaces for shoppers using the adjacent shop. My vehicle was parked in a free space. On my return from the shop a PCN was affixed to the car. The car park signs at the time were small and not very clear but these have recently been updated with larger signs.
I was issued with a County Court Claim late January 2019 and have filed an AOS - waiting for a response to SAR.
Can anyone have a look at the Defence and pull apart as necessary. Thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)


________________________________________
DEFENCE
_______________________________________


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.

Particulars of Claim

3.The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
iii How the “Principal Debt and Initial Legal Costs” of £160.00 pounds has been calculated.

4. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought i.e. whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
As an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case.

No legally binding contract

7. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct when parking at xx on xxx. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

8. In any event, it is denied that the signage used by this claimant at the time of the alleged contravention, could have created a fair or transparent contract. The signage and road markings were inconsistent, confusing, unclear and hence incapable of binding the driver, thus distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis.

Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs

9. In the addition it is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. The claim includes an additional £60 ‘Contractual Costs’ for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. In addition, these costs not permitted under CPR 27.14

10. In the alternative, it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.

No locus standi

11. 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.

12. It is believed that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied by the Claimant until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

13. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

14. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.