Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 22nd Aug 19, 10:35 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Familyguy28
    Defence Deadline Help Please
    • #1
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:35 PM
    Defence Deadline Help Please 22nd Aug 19 at 10:35 PM
    Hi All,

    I received a Claim Form for unpaid PCN's - The issue date was 26th July 2019 and I completed the Acknowledgement of Service on 9th August 2019 (14 days later)... Am I right in thinking tomorrow 23rd August 2019 is the deadline for the defence or do i add on 5 service days?

    Please help me
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Aug 19, 10:37 PM
    • 75,956 Posts
    • 89,067 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:37 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:37 PM
    Add on 5 days.

    And please show us your draft defence and tell us about the PCN, the site, what happened, whether you appealed, etc.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • waamo
    • By waamo 22nd Aug 19, 10:39 PM
    • 7,721 Posts
    • 10,488 Thanks
    waamo
    • #3
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:39 PM
    • #3
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:39 PM
    Hi All,

    I received a Claim Form for unpaid PCN's - The issue date was 26th July 2019 and I completed the Acknowledgement of Service on 9th August 2019 (14 days later)... Am I right in thinking tomorrow 23rd August 2019 is the deadline for the defence or do i add on 5 service days?

    Please help me
    Originally posted by Familyguy28
    Have you constructed a defence? If so post it up here we may be able to help. It's last minute stuff but you never know.

    Hopefully KeithP will be along soon
    This space for hire.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 22nd Aug 19, 10:45 PM
    • 17,315 Posts
    • 20,906 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:45 PM
    • #4
    • 22nd Aug 19, 10:45 PM
    I received a Claim Form for unpaid PCN's - The issue date was 26th July 2019 and I completed the Acknowledgement of Service on 9th August 2019 (14 days later)... Am I right in thinking tomorrow 23rd August 2019 is the deadline for the defence or do i add on 5 service days?
    Originally posted by Familyguy28
    With a Claim Issue Date of 26th July, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 28th August 2019 to file your Defence.

    That's nearly a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 22nd Aug 19, 11:01 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    • #5
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:01 PM
    • #5
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:01 PM
    Hi,

    Thank you both for getting back to me. The Claim is for two PCN's between 02/06/15 and 08/06/15.

    I am the registered keeper and my car was parked without a permit on a private carpark for housing which is located at the back of my house which I had a key to the gated car park. There are absolutely no markings on the floor indicating any parking spaces. The signage is unclear and small and had been erected one day shortly after the housing block changed hands. (And has not been renewed or replaced since).

    There are two PCN's which relate to this claim, on one occasion I was the driver and on the other I was not driving.

    There is a complex situation behind this which is why I have not been able to draft my defence as I don't know how best to explain the situation. In short, I had been given a key to the gate and permission to park in the carpark but do not have this in writing and am not able to prove this.

    I understand I have left this to the last minute and am unsure if i am able to prepare a strong defence at this stage. I have not responded to any correspondence from BW Legal or Premier Park and have only completed an Acknowledgement of Service (09.08.2019).

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 22nd Aug 19, 11:04 PM
    • 7,721 Posts
    • 10,488 Thanks
    waamo
    • #6
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:04 PM
    • #6
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:04 PM
    Hi,

    Thank you both for getting back to me. The Claim is for two PCN's between 02/06/15 and 08/06/15.

    I am the registered keeper and my car was parked without a permit on a private carpark for housing which is located at the back of my house which I had a key to the gated car park. There are absolutely no markings on the floor indicating any parking spaces. The signage is unclear and small and had been erected one day shortly after the housing block changed hands. (And has not been renewed or replaced since).

    There are two PCN's which relate to this claim, on one occasion I was the driver and on the other I was not driving.

    There is a complex situation behind this which is why I have not been able to draft my defence as I don't know how best to explain the situation. In short, I had been given a key to the gate and permission to park in the carpark but do not have this in writing and am not able to prove this.

    I understand I have left this to the last minute and am unsure if i am able to prepare a strong defence at this stage. I have not responded to any correspondence from BW Legal or Premier Park and have only completed an Acknowledgement of Service (09.08.2019).

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you.
    Originally posted by Familyguy28
    Get a defence compiled quick!
    This space for hire.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 22nd Aug 19, 11:07 PM
    • 17,315 Posts
    • 20,906 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:07 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:07 PM
    There are seventeen examples of winning Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. There's a link to that thread in my earlier post.

    Pay particular attention to the concise Defences by Bargepole that you'll find there and adjust one to fit your circumstances.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Aug 19, 11:13 PM
    • 75,956 Posts
    • 89,067 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:13 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:13 PM
    There is a complex situation behind this which is why I have not been able to draft my defence as I don't know how best to explain the situation. In short, I had been given a key to the gate and permission to park in the carpark but do not have this in writing and am not able to prove this.
    Yes you can. Your later WS can include among the evidence, a photo of the key fob and a site plan showing that this is at the back of your house. Then at the hearing you can show you have a key fob and if asked, say that a resident gave you the key and permission to park there (or whatever the situation is).

    Anyway no evidence is needed yet and clearly you can simply adapt the keyfob example defence from the NEWBIES thread, to suit. Might need some tweaking if your house is not actually within the car park site as such, because you can't argue primacy of contract as a resident.

    And you would also need to state that you do not believe that you were the driver for both parking events and put the Claimant to strict proof, and that in 2015 Premier Park failed to use the statutory wording in their NTKs to hold a registered keeper liable.

    Then copy the wording Johnersh wrote in his residential defence example about the POFA and how a keeper cannot be held liable outside of that law.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 22nd Aug 19, 11:58 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    • #9
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:58 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Aug 19, 11:58 PM
    Hi All,

    Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I really do appreciate it

    I had tweaked and saved the below defence previously but now I think it may be worth elaborating on the whole situation...

    Do you guys think it's worth mentioning the car was parked outside the fire exit to my house (not part of the carpark)? We had a loft conversion and a back door had to be added to our garden which leads out onto the private carpark. This was one of the fire regulations of the loft conversion and is one of the reasons why we had obtained a key to the gate and permission from the caretaker, landowner and residents to park there. As I cannot prove this in writing I chose to leave it out.

    The other complication to the situation is that my family owns a security installation business (I was employed by them at the time) they were renting one car parking space through the landowner and had paid yearly I believe. They had also carried our repairs/ replacement locks and keys and had even quoted for replacement gates on the carpark. Therefore, we were somewhat connected to them and had a good relationship with the residents and the caretaker at the time. My father passed away in 2013 and he was the person who initially dealt with the rental of the parking space, during this time my mum took a step back from the business and she did not continue to pay for the parking space (I believe it was paid up until 2014 sometime).

    When we received the PCN's we wrote (emailed) to the new landowner and called them (they had changed hands) to try and reinstate our parking space in light of the working relationship we previously had. They denied this on the basis that we had not paid for around a year and they had now taken over the carpark and building and advised the spaces were required for residents - Even though no one else used to park there other than one car!

    I appreciate this situation is complex and that is why I have left it out of the defence so far, please advise if you think it its worth mentioning in further detail?



    Alternatively, please advise me if I am along the right lines with the below?

    Thank you all again


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    PREMIER PARK LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    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 is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at xxxxxxx.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver 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.

    4. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font that is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The signs are not lit and are not visible from all parking bays (there are no parking bays). It is, therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The signs are also completely invisible at night due to poor lighting.

    5. In addition it is denied that the signs at this location met the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are ‘bound to be seen’ as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were ‘bound to see’ the terms.

    6. Since the material date the signs have not been maintained or updated and have fallen into a state of disrepair.

    7. It is denied that there was agreement to pay a parking charge.

    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 signage was erected without prior warning or notice in the period of May to June 2015. The Claimant failed to highlight this change of contract terms as demanded by British Parking Association Approved Operator Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018, Clause 18.10 ) "Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”
    IPC Code of Practice (Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage. Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions) also states "Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required."

    10. 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 £200. The claim includes an additional £120, for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest' which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    11. Further to point 8 above I believe this to be an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

    12. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
    (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
    (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

    13. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

    14. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

    15. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

    16. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

    17. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: District Judge Taylor stated "IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.” The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…"

    18. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

    19. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

    20. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. 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
    • Redx
    • By Redx 23rd Aug 19, 12:03 AM
    • 24,582 Posts
    • 31,320 Thanks
    Redx
    all the detail goes into the WS later in the process PLUS EXHIBITS and THE COSTS SCHEDULE too


    the defence should be legal points only, not the backstory, but do address the POC on the claim form, and query the added costs as abuse of process
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Aug 19, 12:04 AM
    • 75,956 Posts
    • 89,067 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Do you guys think it's worth mentioning the car was parked outside the fire exit to my house (not part of the carpark)? We had a loft conversion and a back door had to be added to our garden which leads out onto the private carpark. This was one of the fire regulations of the loft conversion and is one of the reasons why we had obtained a key to the gate and permission from the caretaker, landowner and residents to park there. As I cannot prove this in writing I chose to leave it out.
    Add it near the start as you do not have to 'prove' everything you say, just be open & honest with these facts.

    It is the Claimant's case to prove, not for you to prove.

    You still need to add the words I suggested:
    And you would also need to state that you do not believe that you were the driver for both parking events and put the Claimant to strict proof, and that in 2015 Premier Park failed to use the statutory wording in their NTKs to hold a registered keeper liable.

    Then copy the wording Johnersh wrote in his residential defence example about the POFA and how a keeper cannot be held liable outside of that law.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 23rd Aug 19, 12:11 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    Hi Again,

    I failed to mention, the family business received a PCN - They have chosen to pay it at Claim Form stage.

    This is another reason I wasn't sure whether to include the above information as that doesn't really help fight my corner when they have chosen to pay theirs (My mum said she didn't want the stress). I however cannot afford to pay what they are asking for £200 plus interest of £60.48 plus £120 contractural costs plus £35 court fee and £50 Legal costs = £465.48

    Also, does explaining the whole situation in detail identify me to them on here?

    Thank you all again!
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 23rd Aug 19, 6:44 AM
    • 1,475 Posts
    • 2,988 Thanks
    Johnersh
    the defence should be legal points only, not the backstory
    True. But the defence should at least explain what the case was about - when and where parked and what the case is likely to be (no contract, no infringement etc).

    The version above is pure technical points stitched together. It can be sharpened up.

    Even if you did want to pay, you ought to negotiate to strip out the costs that the claimant will know they are at significant risk of not recovering (+60 added to the charge; +interest incurred on the £60; +advocates fees/legal costs not incurred)
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 28th Aug 19, 3:55 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    Good Evening/Morning All,

    Contrary to the advice I received, I have indeed left this until almost the last minute. (Life got in the way).

    I will be submitting my defence tomorrow (around 2/3pm). I have stayed up all night compiling this. I understand this may have taken others minutes to write, but I have been reading endless threads and posts and really just ended up doing the best I could.

    If anyone would like to make some last minute suggestions I would be extremely grateful - I understand this needs to be submitted tomorrow and I have therefore run out of time so please go easy on me as I have my 1 hour lunch break to check this website and then to get this printed and scanned in at work and submitted before 4pm.


    N THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: XXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    PREMIER PARK LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXX (Defendant)

    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 XXXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time, was parked on the material dates at XXXXXXX in an unmarked/unlined parking space causing no obstruction. The Defendant's vehicle was parked in an area which is situated at the rear of the Defendant's property close to the Defendant's fire exit door. The Defendant was parked in this area without a permit, but with permission from the Landowner and/or Residents and/or Caretaker of the property. Furthermore the area is gated and the Defendant was issued with a key to the gate by the Landowner, reinforcing the Defendants belief of permission to park there.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver 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.

    4. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on one of the two occasions in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver on both occasions. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, something Premier Park previously failed to do in 2015 in their Notice to Keepers'. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

    6. 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. If the offence committed is trespass, this is for the Landowner to pursue and not the third party parking agent.

    7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £120 costs to pursue an alleged £200 debt. The additional £120, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    8. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

    9. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font that is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The signs are not lit and are not visible from all parking spaces (there are no lined parking bays). The signs are also almost invisible at night due to the poor lighting. It is, therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    10. In addition it is denied that the signs at this location met the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are ‘bound to be seen’ as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were ‘bound to see’ the terms.

    11. The signage was erected without prior warning or notice in the period of XXXXXXX. The Claimant failed to highlight this change of contract terms as demanded by British Parking Association Approved Operator Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018, Clause 18.10 ) "Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”
    IPC Code of Practice (Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage. Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions) also states "Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required." Since the material date the signs have not been maintained or updated and have fallen into a state of disrepair.

    12. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. 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
    • Redx
    • By Redx 28th Aug 19, 8:21 AM
    • 24,582 Posts
    • 31,320 Thanks
    Redx
    Bear in mind that you can take a picture of your signature on a white piece of paper and add it to the pdf as a digital signature, instead of printing the defence , signing it and scanning it in order to save as a completed pdf

    A digital signature is just as good and can be reused in future

    Just a thought

    I cannot see anything about the abuse of process if they added extra charges ?
    From the sum being claimed it's clear they added them on

    It was also in the previous draft
    Last edited by Redx; 28-08-2019 at 8:25 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 28th Aug 19, 9:27 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    Hi,


    Thank you so much for replying, can you please advise which paragraphs from my draft I should add back in?


    thank you again!!!
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 28th Aug 19, 9:33 AM
    • 6,218 Posts
    • 6,169 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Thank you so much for replying, can you please advise which paragraphs from my draft I should add back in?
    Originally posted by Familyguy28
    All those relating to Abuse of Process, effectively, from your first draft everything from 12 onwards - but do check that when you have done this you don't have any duplication and that you have numbered ALL paragraphs sequentially.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 28th Aug 19, 9:34 AM
    • 24,582 Posts
    • 31,320 Thanks
    Redx
    As above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 28th Aug 19, 10:16 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    Thank you again for your responses, does everything else included look ok?
    • Familyguy28
    • By Familyguy28 28th Aug 19, 10:32 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Familyguy28
    Hi again,
    I am really not sure how to add this back in without re-structuring the whole thing.


    I feel like I've made it worse than it was before and it's now not a concise defence when I was just trying to explain the facts and not just cut and paste another defence.


    I am running out of time and not sure what to do
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,575Posts Today

6,005Users online

Martin's Twitter