Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your prompt response. Does it mean that I don’t have to attend the hearing in person on Monday and also where and how do I file my defence for the original claim?

Yes, I do. But when I search for the claim on there is asking for defence pack password which I don’t have. Thanks

Apologies I posted the defence summary with a link, please see below for ease. Thank you. I used ChatGPT for this

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient detail of the alleged breach, the contractual terms relied upon, or how the sum of £170 has been calculated. The Defendant is therefore unable to fully understand the case against them.
3. The Defendant parked in a marked disabled bay due to disability and reasonable need. The Defendant reasonably believed that parking in the disabled bay was permitted and necessary.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage at the site clearly communicated the alleged requirement for a “valid parking reservation” in relation to disabled bays. The Defendant does not recall any clear signage indicating that disabled bay users were required to make such a reservation.
5. The Defendant avers that any signage present was insufficiently prominent, unclear, or incapable of forming a legally binding contract with the driver.
6. Further, under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. The issuing of a parking charge in circumstances where a disabled person reasonably used a disabled bay may amount to a failure to make such reasonable adjustments.
7. The Defendant further denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss or damage and disputes that the additional sums added to the original charge represent legitimate or recoverable costs.
8. The Defendant also disputes the added sum above the initial parking charge, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and is unsupported by law.
9. For the reasons stated above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.
10. Statement of Truth
11. I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
12. Signed: ___________________
13. Name: ___________________
14. Date: ___________________

I don’t have the original PCN but here’s the PoC I received from the CNBC




Please see also DCB legal submissions to the court which they emailed a copy to me

Thank you

Hi,
Can someone check my defence please if it’s ok to send it. I need to file my defence by Monday 30th March. I have posted the original PCN here as requested. I have posted my defence twice here but please see it below for ease. Thank you.



1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient detail of the alleged breach, the contractual terms relied upon, or how the sum of £170 has been calculated. The Defendant is therefore unable to fully understand the case against them.
3. The Defendant parked in a marked disabled bay due to disability and reasonable need. The Defendant reasonably believed that parking in the disabled bay was permitted and necessary.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage at the site clearly communicated the alleged requirement for a “valid parking reservation” in relation to disabled bays. The Defendant does not recall any clear signage indicating that disabled bay users were required to make such a reservation.
5. The Defendant avers that any signage present was insufficiently prominent, unclear, or incapable of forming a legally binding contract with the driver.
6. Further, under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. The issuing of a parking charge in circumstances where a disabled person reasonably used a disabled bay may amount to a failure to make such reasonable adjustments.
7. The Defendant further denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss or damage and disputes that the additional sums added to the original charge represent legitimate or recoverable costs.
8. The Defendant also disputes the added sum above the initial parking charge, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and is unsupported by law.
9. For the reasons stated above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.
10. Statement of Truth
11. I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
12. Signed: ___________________
13. Name: ___________________
14. Date: ___________________

Opinion may vary, but I'd be tempted to remove #2 entirely. It might not seem the most credible to argue that the PoC are so vague that you do not fully understand the claim against you, when immediately below it your defence points make clear that you do understand the case against you.

Update, please see the defence, I have removed 2 and any wording that identifies the driver

Defence
1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief whatsoever.
2.The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In the absence of such compliance, the Claimant is unable to transfer liability from the driver to any other party. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver.
3.It is denied that the Claimant has established that any legally binding contract was formed between the Claimant and the driver. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site was inadequate to form a contract, being unclear, insufficiently prominent, and incapable of conveying the alleged terms in a transparent or intelligible manner.
4.The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage at the location clearly and prominently communicated any requirement for a “valid parking reservation” in relation to the use of disabled bays. The Defendant avers that no such requirement was clearly displayed or reasonably capable of being understood by a motorist.
5.The vehicle was parked in a clearly marked disabled bay due to disability and reasonable necessity. The use of the disabled bay was reasonable in the circumstances.
6.Further, pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, service providers are under a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. The issuing of a parking charge in circumstances where a disabled bay was used due to disability and reasonable need may amount to a failure to comply with those statutory duties.
7.The Defendant denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss or damage. The parking charge is penal in nature, excessive, and unconscionable, and does not represent a genuine pre estimate of any loss.
8.The Defendant disputes the additional sum added to the original parking charge. The purported “debt recovery”, “damages”, or similar costs are not recoverable and represent an attempt at double recovery. Such practices have been widely criticised by the courts and are unsupported by statute, common law, or the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
9.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legal standing to bring the claim, including evidence of a valid, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that expressly authorises the Claimant to issue parking charges and to pursue litigation in its own name.
10.In the alternative, which is denied, if any contract were found to have been formed, the Defendant avers that the terms relied upon are unfair and unenforceable pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to lack of transparency and a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.
11.For the reasons stated above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.
________________________________________
Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed: __________________________
Name: __________________________
Date: __________________________
________________________________________