MindtheTiger v SmartParking

[Celestine]

Try again!

[echat11]

Posting for MindtheTiger as he's having log in issues.

Celestine

Any chance of changing the title of the thread?
Requested it 'twice'.

[des8]

So now we have page I of claim form , who signed it on final page ? title name please as following a recent case known as "Mazur" they may have problems.

[Celestine]

From MindtheTiger:

David John Croot It says he is authorised by the claimant to sign this form

[atticus]

Posting for MindtheTiger as he's having log in issues.

that photo is barely legible. I would encourage posters to use a scanning app such as Adobe Scan, to create legible pdfs.

[atticus]

From MindtheTiger:

David John Croot It says he is authorised by the claimant to sign this form

A solicitor, director at DCB: https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk...vid-john-croot. There is no Mazur point here.

[des8]

Been out all day (well some of us felt drawn to Cardiff to watch Wales lose against the all Blacks ) so will get creative tomorrow.

[Celestine]

Hi Des - I'm in contact with MTT via email as he still cannot properly access this thread. If you need anything just shout. Thanks, K

[des8]

Celestine & @MindtheTiger

Here's the sort of defence I would be using .
Please read it carefully and amend it where required

In the County Court Centre Claim No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Between

Smart Parking Limited (Claimant)

and

Mr ………. (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim Noxxxxx from Smart Parking Ltd on 02.04.2025
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 to the claim, which appears to be for a parking charge levied for a breach of contract arising from unauthorised parking at a location which is not adequately described. There are , according to the Roy Castle website, two shops in that area
   4The alleged event is stated to have occurred nearly four years ago and the Defendant has no recollection of either visiting, or having reason to visit either of those premises, nor of having received any communication about the alleged event until 23rd May 2025
   5Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors. If fuller description than is possible through MCOL is required, separate Particulars should be sent via letter or email and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused.
   6.On the DD/mm/YY the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 . No response has been received
   
   7 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, as 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
   
   8.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.
   
   Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
   
   9. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity.
   However, the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no knowledge of the driver.
   10The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract) Reason: Unauthorised parking" but, has failed to provide a legible copy of the signs nor indicated which term(s) or condition(s) were contravened, nor how they were contravened
   11.The Defendant is mystified how one can contract to do that which is unauthorised, and avers that even if the vehicle had been parked in the alleged location(which is not admitted and the claimant has provided no proof of the alleged event)) the resulting charge would be a penalty and not contractual
   
   Liability as registered keeper of the vehicle

12.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxx , reg. no. 1234,13. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant repeats paragraphs nine to eleven (inclusive) of this Defence
14.Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
(i)Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
(ii)Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only.
The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:
… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
15.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimant provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.
16.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.

Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified parking and damage charges

17. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of unspecified parking and damage charges in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant as either the driver or the hirer or the owner for the following reasons:
(i)in respect of liability as the driver the Defendant repeats paragraphs 7 & 8 of this Defence

ii)in respect of liability as the driver the Defendant notes that the sum claimed includes unspecified damages contrary to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where the maximum recoverable from a registered keeper is the amount of any unpaid parking charge.

18.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 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.

sign and date

[des8]

I hope you checked carefully ... just noted the date of reception of the claim is incorrect

[Celestine]

Test Mindthetiger

[Celestine]

Mindthetiger managed to submit his defence despite several problems with MCOL.

[echat11]

Celestine Thanks for updating the thread title.