Should I just give in and pay (details in post)

KeithP wrote: »

You've had the Claim Form for over three weeks now.
You can post up your draft Defence for critique if you wish.
Did you do the AoS before last Tuesday?
You now have just one week to finalise your Defence - still plenty of time.

Thanks for the on going replies KeithP. Appreciated.

I have had the form for 3 weeks now. I posted the AoS within the first week started reading for my defence, and then had a long overdue weeks holiday to visit family, and have continued reading over the weekend.

I was using the pre-constructed defense in the thread I linked in my last comment above (as much as I could link with my account restrictions anyway). I'll not post it in its entirety due to privacy, so I'm currently using it as a template and removing things which don't seem to apply.

I'm just looking for some guidance that this is the correct pathway before I invest hours more into the wrong thing, which will kill my inspiration for the task. I struggle with some mental health idiosyncrasies (as previously mentioned) and I'm finding this whole thing a little tough.

Okay, so trying to keep things as concise as possible, and using the concise template (adding in my defense at point 7 and 9 for the costs - should I include court and solicitor fees, as the total is 334.28?):

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX LTD (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 facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXX, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX;. 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.

4. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Defendant attempted to pay but was frustrated by the Claimant’s payment system, which was unreachable by the Defendant at the time of entry. Further, no alternative payment methods like the obvious cash-based pay and display system were available for use. The full daily rate was paid a matter of hours after entry regardless – no attempt to avoid responsibility of payment was made.

8. 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.

9. 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 £159.28, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. 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

So I pretty much have to send whatever I have today. Any suggestions at all will be deeply appreciated at this point. Feeling pretty concerned with it all at this point frankly ...