This means that the mediator will call you between the times shown.It will last minutes, not hours.
@jfollows thank you so much for all that. One quick question - for F3 you state "1" however the person I was doing the removal for is willing to to come as a witness. Is there any real benefit to this? Should I bother putting 2 down?Why not, indeed, it will do no harm.
Do you have any kind of donation station? I would love to buy you a coffee/beer.Make a donation to a charity you support, or one suggested by @b789, or The Stroke Association from me.
As for the N180 DQ just follow this advice:Your objective is to secure a date for a hearing in person at your local court, which you will. The claimant wants a hearing on papers or by telephone at their local court. The costs to them of attending your local court in person are likely to make them discontinue, but given that this is Parking Eye handling the case itself that’s not guaranteed.
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@parkingeye.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
The Claimant’s reply includes commentary on how the court process should be conducted, including instructions on how the Defendant should amend their defence and how the court should manage further filings. I respectfully submit that such commentary is unnecessary and risks undermining the court’s role in managing its own procedure.
Here is the suggested defence. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it.
When you're ready you send it as a PDF as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence in the matter of ParkingEye Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."QuoteIN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper and was the driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof.
2. The Defendant confirms that the selection of “I intend to defend part of this claim” on the Acknowledgement of Service was made in error. The Defendant defends the claim in full.
3. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.5. The PoC are vague, incoherent, and lack the necessary detail required to adequately understand the case being brought. In particular:(a) No copy of the alleged contract or signage is annexed;
(b) The terms said to have been breached are not stated;
(c) The conduct giving rise to the alleged breach is unclear;
(d) There is no specification of the exact duration of the alleged contravention;
(e) There is no explanation for the additional £25 added to the £100 parking charge;
(f) The PoC fail to state whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or under keeper liability provisions.
4. The claim is therefore embarrassing as pleaded and discloses no reasonable cause of action. The Defendant reserves the right to seek an order under CPR 3.4 to strike out the claim.
5. It is denied that any contract was formed. The Defendant will provide evidence that the vehicle was not parked in the conventional sense but was briefly present in connection with loading and unloading goods from a neighbouring premises. The driver remained with the vehicle throughout and was willing and able to move it at any time.
6. These facts are analogous to those considered in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which HHJ Glen confirmed that a temporary presence for the purpose of loading/unloading is not “parking” in the ordinary sense and does not fall within the scope of prohibitive parking terms unless expressly and prominently stated.
7. The signage relied upon is not admitted and is put to strict proof. It is the Defendant’s position that the terms were not clearly or prominently displayed, nor were they capable of forming a binding contractual agreement with a motorist engaged in a short-term, attended delivery in an otherwise empty car park while the site was closed.
8. The amount claimed exceeds the sum specified on the signage and in any Notice to Keeper (NtK). The Claimant seeks £125 when the signage and NtK referred only to a charge of £100. Pursuant to Paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the maximum sum recoverable from a registered keeper is the amount stated in the NtK. Any claim for an additional £25 renders the notice non-compliant and invalid for the purposes of establishing keeper liability under PoFA. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the legal basis for this additional charge, which appears to be an unrecoverable and unlawful surcharge, contrary to both statute and the principles established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
9. The Defendant avers that this claim is speculative and improperly inflated. It is a standard form, mass-issued claim lacking in case-specific detail, issued many months after the alleged event and with no explanation for the delay. The Defendant has suffered significant personal distress during this period and views the Claimant’s conduct as aggressive and oppressive.
10. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.
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:
Date:
I (perhaps unwisely) admitted part of the claim in my response. I hope this shows I am not unreasonable or stubborn. I would pay the original fine of £60 at this point simply to alleviate to the stress and anxiety this is causing me. I recently discovered my brother's corpse after his suicide and have been experiencing PTSD symptoms. I just want this to go away, but I am also so outraged I refuse to simply roll over and hand over such a sum.