DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57799--------------------------------------------------
Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
DIR By: Smellydog
Date: February 12, 2025, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57805--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
DIR By: b789
Date: February 12, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 57810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
DIR By: b789
Date: February 12, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 57812--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form - Parking Eye - Crown Road, Sutton
DIR By: b789
Date: February 12, 2025, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1