3. Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton  (Read 344 times)

0 Members and 77 Guests are viewing this topic.

Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
« on: »
Parking charge for overstaying a Halfords car park in the night. Crown Road, Sutton.

Didn't respond to the letters and now need a response for court.

Currently drafted several areas:

1. No original notice to keep received
2. Unclear signage
3. No proof of landowner enforcement at this time
4. Charge is excessive and punitive.

Any other points I can use?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
« Reply #1 on: »
With an issue date of 20th January, you had until 8th February to submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) which would have extended your defence submission deadline to 4pm on Monday 24th February. However if you have not submitted an AoS, your deadline for filing your defence was 4pm on Monday 10th February.

So, did you submit an AoS? If not, you are very likely already the recipient of a CCJ by default. Check your MCOL history. If they haven'y yet realised, you need to get a defence, any defence, submitted right now... this minute.

So, DO we spend any time assisting you with a defence or is it too late?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
« Reply #2 on: »
If you did not submit an AoS, then you can copy and paste the following into the MCOL defence webform. It is very basic but provides enough for you to later hang your Witness Statement (WS).

Quote
1. The Defendant denies liability for the claim.

2. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) as they do not set out a clear and concise statement of the facts relied upon. The PoC fail to specify:

- The full terms of the alleged contract.
- Whether the claim is based on breach of contract or a contractual charge.
- How the sum claimed, including the additional £25, has been calculated.
- How the Claimant asserts Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

3. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim or order the Claimant to re-plead with proper particulars.

4. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). PoFA requires wording that explicitly links the Keeper to the payment obligation, either by inviting them to pay the charge or provide the driver’s details. The NtK only states that the driver is liable and provides payment instructions for the driver, with no indication that the Keeper is invited to pay. PoFA compliance must be explicit, and implied obligations do not suffice. Therefore, Keeper liability does not apply.

5. The Claimant seeks an additional £25 beyond the £100 stated in the NtK. PoFA 4(5) prohibits this, limiting recovery to the amount specified in 9(2)(d). The additional sum is an abuse of process.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of standing, contractual authority, and compliance with PoFA.

7. The claim is without merit and should be struck out.

If you did submit an AoS, then do not use the MCOL to submit your defence. A much more extensive defence can be submitted by email before the deadline.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
« Reply #3 on: »
Edited to make sure it will fit within the constraints of the MCOL bastardisation protocol which limits the online defence to around 50 lines with 45 characters per line.

Copy and paste as is:

Quote
1. The Defendant denies liability for
the claim.

2. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim
(PoC) fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
as they do not set out a clear and concise
statement of facts. The PoC fail to specify:

- The full terms of the alleged contract.
- Whether the claim is for breach of
contract or a contractual charge.
- How the sum claimed, including the
additional £25, has been calculated.
- How the Claimant asserts Keeper
liability under PoFA.

3. The Defendant invites the Court to
strike out the claim or order the
Claimant to re-plead with proper details.

4. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper (NtK)
does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4,
9(2)(e)(i). PoFA requires wording that
explicitly links the Keeper to the payment
obligation, either by inviting them to
pay or provide the driver’s details. The
NtK only states the driver is liable and
provides payment instructions, with no
indication the Keeper is invited to pay.
PoFA compliance must be explicit; implied
obligations do not suffice. Keeper liability
does not apply.

5. The Claimant seeks an additional £25
beyond the £100 in the NtK. PoFA 4(5)
prohibits this, limiting recovery to the
amount in 9(2)(d). The extra sum is an
abuse of process.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof
of standing, contractual authority, and
PoFA compliance.

7. The claim is without merit and should
be struck out.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2025, 01:58:42 pm by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton