N1 Claim form received - Gladstones

Thanks for all of the helpful posts so far - those of you who help others are doing a great job. I have reviewed other defences from this year and have drafted the defence. I would really appreciate any suggestions to improve it.

Claim issue date: 08 Nov 2018

AOS response date: 12 Nov 2018

Particulars of Claim
The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXX (the “Vehicle”) incurred the parking charge(s) on xx/xx/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxxxx. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £xxx for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interests of £xxx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to judgement at £xxx per day

Background
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.
3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date on XXXXX (location). The Defendant stopped the vehicle at a convenient point close to the xxxx veterinary practice at xxxxx (location) for less than ten minutes, whilst transferring a sick pet.
4. The Formal Demand letter dated xxx is 32 days after the issue date of the PCN and was received by the Defendant on xxxx which is 40 days after the issue date of the PCN. No PCN was attached to the vehicle – a fact acknowledge in the claimants response dated xx/xx/2018 to the Defendant’s initial appeal

Defence!

1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle”.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.!

2. 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.

3. The Particulars are not clear, and the claimant has not provided enough information to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract, which it is alleged was broken, have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

4. The signage was insufficient and could not be seen at all when parking the vehicle. Only upon further investigation after 2 PCNs arrived, a small font sign was discovered on a single wall.

5. 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.

6. The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper arrived late (not within 15 days). The first notification that the Defendant received was issued 32 days after the issue date of the PCN, and received 40 days after the issue date.

7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

8. 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