Thanks very much for the response, just for clarity, can I ask if this is what you were referring to in terms of defence?:
"1. The Defendant denies that they are liable for the entirety of the claim.
2. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach. The Claimant has not specified the contractual terms that were allegedly breached, nor provided evidence of signage, photographs, or a copy of any contract. The claim therefore fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and should be struck out.
3. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver on the material date. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In the absence of such compliance, the Defendant as registered keeper cannot be held liable.
4. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:
a. A valid and binding contract existed with the driver.
b. The signage was adequate, visible, and capable of forming a contract.
c. The Claimant had authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) and to bring legal proceedings.
5. The Defendant further denies that the £100 charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a proportionate charge. It is an unenforceable penalty and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
6. The additional sum of £60.00 contractual costs is an abuse of process.
In Southampton (Claim No. F0DP201T, 11/07/2019, HHJ Taylor), the court ruled that such added sums were unlawful, struck out claims, and held that adding debt collection costs was an abuse.
In Gloucester (Claim No. G4QZ465V, 21/06/2021, HHJ Murch), the judge again ruled that the £60 add-on was an abuse and struck it out.
These judgments make clear that such charges constitute unlawful double recovery, since all costs of collection are already factored into the parking company’s business model and the £100 PCN.
7. The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s entitlement to statutory interest under s69 of the County Courts Act 1984, given that no valid debt exists."
If this is the material for me to use, I do feel like I may have a minor issue. In terms of that defence, there's a couple of points in which I won't be able to include...Whilst I asked for the agreement between client and landowner, I received an email response from Moorside with "Site Entrance" where it highlights signage etc As their email on the 27th of November included one of these pdf's outlining it, can I still use this section?:
"2. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach. The Claimant has not specified the contractual terms that were allegedly breached, nor provided evidence of signage, photographs, or a copy of any contract. The claim therefore fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and should be struck out."
Also, in the early parts of this thread, I've made an admission to being in the car, not necessarily said "I drove"- but don't know if this will impact the overall defence claim, should I also include paragraph 3?
I'm sorry for the questions, first and hopefully last time I face this type of issue and I'm keen to ensure I'm following correct steps/guidance
