Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Euro Car Parks, Aytoun St Manchester. Money Claim defence needed
« on: October 21, 2024, 09:39:41 am »
Hi there
This is great news. Thought for sure that the deadline was missed and I was in deep trouble here. Also did not realise that there are an additional five days grace since the MCOL issue-date to submit the defence. Probably a good thing that I did not know this.
To clarify, the AoS was submitted at lunchtime on 03/10/24 and MCOL shows it was 'received' at 16:05 on the same day. There are no further messages on the claim history and I cannot see any default CCJ was issued. Does this mean the timescales for defending this Money Claim are OK?
See below for the defence template that was submitted on 18/10/24 (from another recent FTLA Euro Car Parks thread) with personal details updated.
And this is the link to the Short Defence Order also sent with the defence document.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yjj8nwoc6sknmc9uawecf/short-defence-order-copy-3.pdf?rlkey=y3xyz2s8vumu0k3webocx9sza&e=2&st=66sobk5r&dl=0
Just noticed the defence doc asserts (point 3g) there is ambiguity on whether the keeper or the driver is held responsible but the PoC clearly states that ECP believes it is the driver. Should I amend the defence doc to reflect this, or make any other changes while there is time to do so?
Many thanks for your help. You guys are doing such amazing work.
//DEFENCE DOCUMENT
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [CLAIM NO]
BETWEEN:
Euro Car Parks Limited
Claimant
- and -
[DEFENDANT NAME]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on;
(c) The PoC do not clearly set out the reason why or how the claimant asserts that the defendant has breached the contract;
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity (i) exactly where the breach occurred, (ii) the exact time when the breach occurred and (iii) how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action;
(h) In the Notice to Keeper (NtK) received after the claim was issued, the Claimant has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, the Claimant failed to include the required "invitation", or any synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay the charge as mandated by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and therefore, there can be no Keeper liability.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.
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:
[DEFENDANT NAME]
Date:
[DATE]
//ENDS ALL
This is great news. Thought for sure that the deadline was missed and I was in deep trouble here. Also did not realise that there are an additional five days grace since the MCOL issue-date to submit the defence. Probably a good thing that I did not know this.
To clarify, the AoS was submitted at lunchtime on 03/10/24 and MCOL shows it was 'received' at 16:05 on the same day. There are no further messages on the claim history and I cannot see any default CCJ was issued. Does this mean the timescales for defending this Money Claim are OK?
See below for the defence template that was submitted on 18/10/24 (from another recent FTLA Euro Car Parks thread) with personal details updated.
And this is the link to the Short Defence Order also sent with the defence document.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yjj8nwoc6sknmc9uawecf/short-defence-order-copy-3.pdf?rlkey=y3xyz2s8vumu0k3webocx9sza&e=2&st=66sobk5r&dl=0
Just noticed the defence doc asserts (point 3g) there is ambiguity on whether the keeper or the driver is held responsible but the PoC clearly states that ECP believes it is the driver. Should I amend the defence doc to reflect this, or make any other changes while there is time to do so?
Many thanks for your help. You guys are doing such amazing work.
//DEFENCE DOCUMENT
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [CLAIM NO]
BETWEEN:
Euro Car Parks Limited
Claimant
- and -
[DEFENDANT NAME]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on;
(c) The PoC do not clearly set out the reason why or how the claimant asserts that the defendant has breached the contract;
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity (i) exactly where the breach occurred, (ii) the exact time when the breach occurred and (iii) how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action;
(h) In the Notice to Keeper (NtK) received after the claim was issued, the Claimant has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, the Claimant failed to include the required "invitation", or any synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay the charge as mandated by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and therefore, there can be no Keeper liability.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.
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:
[DEFENDANT NAME]
Date:
[DATE]
//ENDS ALL