Help with county court claim for parking motorbike in hatched area 5 years ago

[des8]

We're keen on peeps doing it themselves so have a go and post up your draft here before sending so it can be tweaked if necessary

[Clayr001]

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly
admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for
the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons,
any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.
i. The driver parked in a restricted / prohibited area, the registered keeper received the paperwork.
ii. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
iii. Abuse of process - breach of the CPRs, two statute laws and going behind the Beavis case

ii. the signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
1. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any
contract existed.
2. The Claimant states, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’
but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and
acceptance to form a contract were not present.
3. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
4. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to vehicles parked within the marked bays only and therefore the terms cannot apply to vehicles parked outside of the marked bays because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract to park was created when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
iii. Abuse of process - breach of the CPRs, two statute laws and
going behind the Beavis case
11. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has
artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs which
have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are
artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the
Small Claims costs rules using double recovery
12. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a
disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'.
13. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover
'administration/recovery costs' is also potentially open to
challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where
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.
14. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery
contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no
fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is
breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a
cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true,
whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the
process.
15. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis,
this Claimant's purported added 'costs' are wholly
disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand
up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court
areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer
agreement, case law and two statute laws hold that, when it comes
to parking charges on private land, the parking firm's own
business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge'
as if they are additional losses.
16. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is
the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no
more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already
incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business
model including recovery letters. 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.
17. 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, harassing and indeed
untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements
made.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

[Clayr001]

des8 and ostell i have had a go at writing my defence. am i along the right lines? also how do i find out how long i have to submit my defence as i have lost alot of time over the festive period

[des8]

I'll look at your defence tomorrow.
assuming you followed correct procedure and acknowledged claim within the first 17 days you have 31 days from date of issue of claim to file & serve your defence

[des8]

I would suggest something more along these lines, but it is your case and you'll be the one fighting it!



1.The Defendant received the claim [Claim Number] from the [Name of Court – often Northampton or Salford] County Court on [Date you received the claim]

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3.This claim appears to be for breach of contract

4.It is denied that any contract was entered into, as the signage on which the claim is based is incapable of forming a contract

5.The signage is forbidding, and it is not possible to contract to carry out an act which is forbidden
PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]

6.This should be a claim by the landowner for the tort of trespass

7.The Claimant does not know the driver's identity (I assume you have not identified the driver and suggest you go through this thread anonymising it as suggested in post 10. Parking companies do read these threads and have picked up identities of drivers from them! cf posts 1,5 &6)

8 The Notice to Keeper did not comply with the essential terms of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 9 (1) (2) (a) & (h) so liability has not been transferred from the driver to the keeper

9The claim is for £160.00, whereas the original charge was for £100.00

10The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by PoFA 2012
Schedule 4 4 (1) (5)is the amount specified in the notice to keeper (£100)

11 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.

12.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

[Clayr001]

You are a hero, thank you so much