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@.

    • mary6157
    • By mary6157 12th Oct 18, 2:52 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 1Thanks
    county court summons
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 18, 2:52 PM
    county court summons 12th Oct 18 at 2:52 PM

    I have received a
    MCOL claim form for a parking ticket issued on 20/08/16. Ihave acknowledged service of the summons and have stated my intention to defend all of the claim.
    The circumstances are:
    vehicle was parked at pub car park in a parking bay and did not see any signage indicating there was a charge for parking.
    I have ignored all the letters I have received following advice from a friend and have now received the summons.
    The company is Parking Awareness Services and they are represented by BW legal.
    I have read all the advice in the "Newbies post" and am looking for some advice as to how to build my defence.

    I will try and post some photos I have recently taken of the car park and signs.

    I am grateful for any advice.

    The cost of the claim is 258.02.
    I will also post a copy of the claim form.
    Last edited by mary6157; 12-10-2018 at 3:36 PM.
Page 2
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Oct 18, 5:08 PM
    • 38,006 Posts
    • 22,104 Thanks
    I'd like to offer an alternative to the "hide the driver" arguments suggested by Quentin and Red-x.

    It does work sometimes but most time it doesn't. See #2 in my signature for what can happen.

    A judge has a couple of bear traps he can lay for the unwary. The first is "balance of probabilities" (BoP) which gives him/her free reign to decide who was driving. And in one court you are made to swear an oath to say you were not driving.

    The second trap is "adverse inference" which is where a judge is allowed to penalise a party if they feel they are being untruthful or hiding something.

    In this case, if you hide the driver, it is perfectly possible for a judge to decide on BoP that you were the driver and the signs were clear by taking adverse inference from an unwillingness to be open about the issues.

    But as always, free advice should be judged by its price.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    You misunderstood the thinking behind advising newbies to remain anonymous and not reveal who was driving. It's not intended to be the basis of the defence - though could be! (Think golden ticket)

    Newbies often divulge their identity and the identity of the driver in an OP written in ignorance of the game.

    When they are aware of the significance of revealing either the driver or their ID then they decide the way forward.

    But initially there is no downside to keeping those details away from the PPC

    Your disparaging comment regarding "free advice" is impolite and unnecessary
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 12th Oct 18, 6:01 PM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    Your disparaging comment regarding "free advice" is impolite and unnecessary
    But you haven't said whether it is true or not. Or relevant. Only that you have found it not to your particular taste.

    Get down and dirty and visit a few courts.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Oct 18, 10:41 PM
    • 38,006 Posts
    • 22,104 Thanks
    Most contributions here are from folk who give them freely, and make no attempt to profit from their time spent here. There is a good record of success here.

    What do you want to know is true or not??
    • mary6157
    • By mary6157 21st Oct 18, 10:21 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks

    I have read all your replies with thanks and it would seem that my case is weak. There were signs but as they were side on to the parking spaces I did not see them.
    I am not sure if it is worth fighting in court?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Oct 18, 10:45 AM
    • 38,006 Posts
    • 22,104 Thanks
    Put your draft 'csse' up here for comments on its strength or weakness!
    • mary6157
    • By mary6157 21st Oct 18, 11:19 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    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 in a marked bay in a public house. The defendant enjoys lunching at public houses and has never known parking not to be free at these sorts of establishments.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that 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. 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.
    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. The signs are “side-on” from the parking spaces and are therefore not clear what they are when driving into a car space. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. 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.

    8. 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 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    9. 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.
    • mary6157
    • By mary6157 22nd Oct 18, 9:59 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Is anyone able to comment on my draft defence?

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

289Posts Today

1,544Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The responses to this thread are no question the best of british!

  • RT @SMinihane87: @MartinSLewis After she received the title she addressed it in literally the first episode of the next season of the appre?

  • RT @WhichUK: ??CHRISTMAS WARNING TO PARENTS?? Don't buy any of these slimes for your kids ? they all contain potentially unsafe levels of?

  • Follow Martin