Below is some general advice on filling out an N180.
Re. mediation - it's now a mandatory part of the process, but generally pointless in these sort of claims. Have a search around on here for other cases that have gone to court and you'll see what it involves.
Correct. 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.
Hopefully you have found some similar threads. Your defence is yours, but you could make some of your points using wording along these lines as a framework:
(1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
(2) It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at all material times, but liability is denied.
(3) It is denied that a contract was entered into with the Claimant by conduct. To form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. The signage the Claimant relies on is entirely prohibitive, containing no legitimate offer to park on certain terms. Accordingly, it is denied that any contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant.
(4) Even if a contract was formed (which is denied), it is submitted that the alleged contractual terms relied on, namely a blanket prohibition on stopping, including stops borne out of necessity/safety, are impossible to safely comply with and therefore cannot give rise to liability due to being unfair under the Consumer Rights Act (2015).
(5) As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, the liability of the defendant must be considered in his capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle. It cannot be assumed that the keeper was also the driver (VCS Limited v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]).
(6) The land in question is covered by the Leeds Bradford Airport Byelaws (2022) and as such is not relevant land as defined in paragraph 3, Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). Accordingly, the Claimant is unable to recover any charges from the Defendant in his capacity as the registered keeper, under the provisions of Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).
(7) Whilst liability for the entire claim is denied, the Defendant further denies liability for the additional costs of £70, vaguely referred to by the claimant as "contractual costs", above and beyond the £100 parking charge. The added costs are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, the Claimant.
An example of something you may wish to add, is a point between (3) and (4), briefly outlining what actually happened (e.g. the vehicle stopped out of necessity).