Need urgent help: County court claim private parking PCN

Hello experts,

I received a court claim form for parking in a private space on 15th March 2019. They had sent me PCN which I did not reply to or accepted to pay. The parking company is Euro Parking Services ltd and the solicitors are Gladstones solicitors ltd. I had filed an Aos which gave me 33 days from this date to file my defence. I requested Gladstones the following information which they did not reply to.

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref *****

I have received a claim regarding these parking notices

I no longer possess either of the parking notices or any subsequent correspondence

In accordance with the Over-riding Objective, I require copies of all the documents and photographs that your client intends to rely on

In addition to the parking notices and subsequent correspondence I require :

1 The documentary evidence required by your client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question.
2 A copy of your client's contract with Debt Recovery Plus and evidence that it paid the charges
3 Photographs of the signs at the location and a site plan
4 Evidence that the signs have the required planning consent or an explanation why it is not required
5 A clear statement whether the claim is for (a) a contractual charge (b) a breach of a contract or © trespass

I presume that you have completed the due diligence on your client's evidence prior to raising the claim and expect to receive the documents within 7 days.

I have attached a picture of my passport for ID purposes.

Regards,

---

I also requested for SAR which i have got reply back from and going to post the details over here. I now need to file a defence by 16th Apr 2019. I have prepared a defence, please could someone review and suggest any improvements.

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking service to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

3) The Defendant believes, Parking in what is effectively a 'no parking' arrangement would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form.

5) The Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice

6) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs. The request has been ignored.

7) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter

8) The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

9) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

10) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, 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.

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) 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.

13) 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Many thanks