Tweet
So here's a draft template defence for you to ponder and read and understand.
If you get to court this is what you will answer questions on, so do check it and make alterations... it is your defence
when you type it up use a font like times new Roman with size 12.5 and line spacing of 1.5
From your post 1 I'm not quite sure how they arrive at their claim total... seems someone can't add up.
DEFENCE
Introduction
The defendant notes that the claimant failed to follow the CPR Pre-action protocol for debt claims
1..The Defendant received the claim xxx from Civil Enforcement Ltd on dd/mm/yy
2.Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
.
i)state that the claim is for an unpaid parking charge (singular) but later states “charges
(plural) of £175 are claimed” .It is unclear about the number of charges that the
Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant
iii) do not state the nature of the alleged breach in sufficient detail
4. The defendant notes the claimant has failed to provide proof of his right to manage the car park although sent a CPR 31.14 request
5.It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate which makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
6. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to
CPR 3.1 to:
7. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
8. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was a “breach of contract terms/ conditions(TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by claimant, Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/ parking "
It is unclear from the claimants pleading what terms/conditions were breached
9.Following receipt of the claim, and copies of two different Parking Charge Notices bearing the same reference number but different dates and addressees, the keeper has visited the park to ascertain the possible position.
10. An examination of the car park and signage thereat showed It is clearly possible that the driver did not see the single sign at the entry if entering from the East as it could have been obscured by a vehicle leaving, or just not visible if entering from the opposite direction (west).
In the park itself , signs are positioned round the periphery and it is possible the driver parked in the centre and did not see the signs
11.Therefore it is denied that the driver agreed to the T& Cs as claimed and so no contract was formed
Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified charges
12. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery unspecified charges in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant for the following reasons:
13.The signage in the car park refers to a charge of £100 plus unspecified additional costs/recovery charges
14. the Defendant asserts the “additional charges/recovery charges” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
15 Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.( CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
16.The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges/recovery charges.
17.It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14)
18.Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)
19.In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
20. In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b) )
21. Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown
22. the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.
SIGNED …………………………………………..
Dated
If you get to court this is what you will answer questions on, so do check it and make alterations... it is your defence
when you type it up use a font like times new Roman with size 12.5 and line spacing of 1.5
From your post 1 I'm not quite sure how they arrive at their claim total... seems someone can't add up.
DEFENCE
Introduction
The defendant notes that the claimant failed to follow the CPR Pre-action protocol for debt claims
1..The Defendant received the claim xxx from Civil Enforcement Ltd on dd/mm/yy
2.Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
.
i)state that the claim is for an unpaid parking charge (singular) but later states “charges
(plural) of £175 are claimed” .It is unclear about the number of charges that the
Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant
- ii)..fail to state the reason for the Defendant's alleged liability for the alleged charge(s)
iii) do not state the nature of the alleged breach in sufficient detail
4. The defendant notes the claimant has failed to provide proof of his right to manage the car park although sent a CPR 31.14 request
5.It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate which makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
6. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to
CPR 3.1 to:
- I) make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
ii) If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
Or
iii) if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
iv) exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
7. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
8. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was a “breach of contract terms/ conditions(TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by claimant, Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/ parking "
It is unclear from the claimants pleading what terms/conditions were breached
9.Following receipt of the claim, and copies of two different Parking Charge Notices bearing the same reference number but different dates and addressees, the keeper has visited the park to ascertain the possible position.
10. An examination of the car park and signage thereat showed It is clearly possible that the driver did not see the single sign at the entry if entering from the East as it could have been obscured by a vehicle leaving, or just not visible if entering from the opposite direction (west).
In the park itself , signs are positioned round the periphery and it is possible the driver parked in the centre and did not see the signs
11.Therefore it is denied that the driver agreed to the T& Cs as claimed and so no contract was formed
Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified charges
12. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery unspecified charges in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant for the following reasons:
13.The signage in the car park refers to a charge of £100 plus unspecified additional costs/recovery charges
14. the Defendant asserts the “additional charges/recovery charges” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
15 Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.( CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
16.The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges/recovery charges.
17.It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14)
18.Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)
19.In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
20. In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b) )
21. Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown
22. the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.
SIGNED …………………………………………..
Dated
Comment