County court Letter And help with defense

I am looking to start my defense today but finding it difficult to use my evidence and put it into defense language suitable for court.
The evidence i wish to use in my defense are as follows:
-The neighbor doesn't own the land. This is proven by the land register.
-The neighbor has downloaded the UKCMP phone app agreeing to the terms and conditions stating that she owns the land. Again proven by the land register she doesn't.
-Neighbor has places signs of clamping in operation which i believe is illegal on private land.
-Neighbor has placed UKCMP signs out which state you need a permit to park on the land however the current cars she has parked there none of them display a permit which i have photo evidence of.

I just need help getting these points written up correctly into a defense i have read bargepole thread on how a defense should be laid out at the start and end its just the actual bullet point evidence i need to be written up in court language.

Any help would be appreciated.

Understood the evidence comes later. How is this for the defense:


Statement of 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 <insert colour> <insert make> <insert model> motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on <insert date> at <insert location> that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice 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!!!8217;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 smacks of a !!!8220;Cut and Paste!!!8221; 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!!!8217;s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.

5. Additionally such scant 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 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 !!!8220;Act!!!8221;) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; existed.

11. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence or otherwise of a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; 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 judgment in Elliott !!!8211;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 (it was a criminal matter) 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 this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.

15. I will seek to argue a more detailed rebuttal should the Claimant plead the case cited but in any event submit that the case cited be disregarded.

16. 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 in terms of their numbers, distribution 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 Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

17. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine !!!8211;v- London Borough of Waltham Forest insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.

18. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.

19. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant!!!8217;s signs that the most onerous term !!!8211; the £100 parking charge notice !!!8211; is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR!!!8217;s !!!8220;Red Hand Rule!!!8221;.

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

21. It is further anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye !!!8211;v- Beavis. In due course I will seek to demonstrate that the instant matter may be distinguished from that case.

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

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

Thanks for the reply is this better ?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

KNUCKLE-DRAGGERS R US LTD (Claimant)

-and-

FREDDIE FARNESBARNES (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
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 <insert colour> <insert make> <insert model> motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on <insert date> at <insert location> that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice 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 Claimants case.

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

4. 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.

5. 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 smacks of 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.

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

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 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 judgment 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 (it was a criminal matter) 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 this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.

15. I will seek to argue a more detailed rebuttal should the Claimant plead the case cited but in any event submit that the case cited be disregarded.

16. 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 in terms of their numbers, distribution 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 Independent Parking Committee Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

17. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine v- London Borough of Waltham Forest insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.

18. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.

19. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant's 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.

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

21. It is further anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye v- Beavis. In due course I will seek to demonstrate that the instant matter may be distinguished from that case.

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

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

________________________________________

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

With a signature and date below

Regarding who owns the land I have received a response from the council stating that they do not own then land.
My response was so if the council doesn’t own the land and the neighbour ticketing through a PPC doesn’t own the land why am I getting Parking tickets and county court notices. His response was to advise me to get legal advice as one of the properties on the street behind mine could have deeds to the land but have never followed them up.
So regarding a defense I am left abit stumpped as to who I should put down for owning the land as no one seems to have the rights.
Either way surely by the neighbour clamming she owns the land and hiring UKCMP she is in the wrong ?
How shall I put this into a defense ?
Many thanks.

First of all thank you for your quick response. To answer the question yes I do understand what is meant by standing however I am not good at understanding what the court is looking for as a defense.
What should I write in 6 to prove they do not have standing is my question giving the research and advise I have already followed to do from everyone.