Going to court for parking in my own spot

Bloomin' heck guys, quick to come out with the sweeping brush! Haha

I have read the above posts and I understand the process, as far as I'm aware up to the point of my question.

To clarify I was wondering; as a defendant I get to provide points of defence of which I can later expand upon in greater detail with supporting evidence. I cannot under normal circumstances bring new evidence unless it's directly related to the points in my defence.

The point I was making is that Gladstone's have simply made the claim, "I agreed to the charge" and I've been advised this is simply implied agreement to the contract of signage. Can they bring other evidence to the table other than what relates to the supposed agreement of said contract?

Bargepole's advice regarding procedures only mentions what I should do and what I am able to do, not the claimant. Unless of course, I'm a moron and it wouldn't be the first time that's been proven. I'm probably overthinking but asking questions such as this is me being prepared.

Cheers guys.

Hello all, I've included my defence below and it's extremely similar to the one previously mentioned and couldn't have written it better. The only thing I'm not sure about including is about 'onerous terms' as I'm not entirely sure what they are referring to but I thought perhaps it wouldn't hurt to leave it in.

Thoughts?

--

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Claim is inadequate and the particulars lack any specificity. The Defendant is therefore prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence due to said lack of specificity. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand their Particulars in any shape of form at a later stage of proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to negotiate at any stage and engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is likely to be the driver of vehicle registration #### ### which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Direct Line with one named driver permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on ##/##/#### the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ##### #####, ####


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
5. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier/tenant of leaseholder of ## ##### #####, ####, whose lease agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) in designated parking bays. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.
The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in an allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

6. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly, it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording legibility and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3; furthermore
8.1.4 Signage is not present upon entry to the residence courtyard / car park.
8.1.5 The signage contained illegible terms in small print in relation to extra charges that cannot be read at any reasonable distance.
8.1.6 Signage is not legible in dark hours due to non-existent signage lighting.

8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If you based your defence on this one posted by Johnersh, then, provided you have followed the notes at the bottom of the post, you should be good to go.

It is indeed. The circumstances are very similar and the specificity of the points are quite comparable so I've just added any extra needed changes.