Tweet
Re: County Court Claim Defence
1. I am the Defendant, xxxxx, DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at xxxxxxxxx
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denieseach and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, orimplied in Pre action correspondence.
Preliminary matters
3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim disclose no legal cause ofaction and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant'sstatement of case is insufficiently particularised and does notcomply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16 and practicedirection 16 7.5. In this regard I wish to draw the Courts attentionto the following matters;
(a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do notdisclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding thealleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation tothe nature of the any agreement. the method the Claimant calculatedany outstanding sums due, how they became due, or any other mattersnecessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.
(b) Upon receipt of the claim the claimant was contacted by thedefendant and asked to replead the claim to correct the deficiencies,but refused to do so.
(c) The over riding objective of the CPRs dictates that the caseshould be handled at a proportionate cost. The defendant recognisesthis duty and refrains from making an application for summaryjudgement at a cost which exceeds the claims value but asks the courtto strike the claim out under it’s powers, of it’s own motion.
The case
4. The particulars of claim state :- --date--description-amount-duedate 160915 xxxxxxxxxxxx £150. The defendant can neither admit nordeny this as it is unintelligible. If the £150 is for a parkingcharge then it is submitted that it is a penalty which isunenforceable in law and exceeds the stated maximum of the accreditedtrade association.
5. The claimant is put to strict proof that they are entitled to £150plus interest as claimed. The defendant did not enter a contract.
6. The signage at Heath Parade, Colindale NW9 is inadequate as the parking 'contract' displayed on the signs is in font so small it is impossible to be read at ground level. Further once readable they are forbidding and only offer a contract to "authorised vehicles" for the purposes of loading. To form a contract one must be able to read and accept the offer and such a wall of text placed in such a position cannot be read from a moving, or even stationary, vehicle. Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] , Parkingeye v Beavis 2015 uksc 67
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Dated this 27th day of September 2016
My suggestion.
M1
M1
| IN THE [TOWN] |
COUNTY COURT |
CASE No. |
||
| BETWEEN |
||||
| [IVOR PROBLEM] |
Claimant |
|||
| AND |
||||
| [JUSTIN TIME] |
Defendant |
|||
| DEFENCE |
|
|||
1. I am the Defendant, xxxxx, DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at xxxxxxxxx
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denieseach and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, orimplied in Pre action correspondence.
Preliminary matters
3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim disclose no legal cause ofaction and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant'sstatement of case is insufficiently particularised and does notcomply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16 and practicedirection 16 7.5. In this regard I wish to draw the Courts attentionto the following matters;
(a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do notdisclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding thealleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation tothe nature of the any agreement. the method the Claimant calculatedany outstanding sums due, how they became due, or any other mattersnecessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.
(b) Upon receipt of the claim the claimant was contacted by thedefendant and asked to replead the claim to correct the deficiencies,but refused to do so.
(c) The over riding objective of the CPRs dictates that the caseshould be handled at a proportionate cost. The defendant recognisesthis duty and refrains from making an application for summaryjudgement at a cost which exceeds the claims value but asks the courtto strike the claim out under it’s powers, of it’s own motion.
The case
4. The particulars of claim state :- --date--description-amount-duedate 160915 xxxxxxxxxxxx £150. The defendant can neither admit nordeny this as it is unintelligible. If the £150 is for a parkingcharge then it is submitted that it is a penalty which isunenforceable in law and exceeds the stated maximum of the accreditedtrade association.
5. The claimant is put to strict proof that they are entitled to £150plus interest as claimed. The defendant did not enter a contract.
6. The signage at Heath Parade, Colindale NW9 is inadequate as the parking 'contract' displayed on the signs is in font so small it is impossible to be read at ground level. Further once readable they are forbidding and only offer a contract to "authorised vehicles" for the purposes of loading. To form a contract one must be able to read and accept the offer and such a wall of text placed in such a position cannot be read from a moving, or even stationary, vehicle. Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] , Parkingeye v Beavis 2015 uksc 67
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Dated this 27th day of September 2016
Comment