Legal Notice of Breach of Contract...

[lamma]

consider it to be public knowledge now.

[skyelet]

well they had an hour to nosey at my defence, which was only a draft... so if they didnt see it, then tough luck. ill see them at court!

[Steve__M]

 

According to the Civil Procedure Rules, a Particulars of Claim must contain

 

(a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

 

 

The initial defence needs only to deny the claim and give brief details:

 

"In his defence, the defendant must state –

(a) which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;

 

(b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; and

 

© which allegations he admits."

 

 

I think, therefore, my defence would be:

 

"The claimant has failed to identify adequate grounds for issuing the claim. I did not agreed to be bound by any "parking reg." on the given date, and therefore cannot be liable for payment for breaching any "parking reg."."

 

Keep the remainder of your defence to yourself until the case is given a hearing date.

 

I am not a lawyer. I strongly suspect that someone more knowledgeable than myself could punish Trethowans for this PoC by applying for it to be struck out.

[angry_driver]

I would not have put your defense up on the board. the PPC now knows all about it. best policy is never publish the defense, let them find out through the court.

 

Lamma ... Surely you do not have double standards !!!

 

I have seen other topics in which you have argues with PPCs and you are always telling them to supply a copy of the particulars of claim, the defence and other docs...

 

Now you seem to be saying to people dont do it !!!!

[Al27]

I think the best policy is just to completely ignore AngryDriver from now on.

 

22 posts of PPC crap so far.

[My Real Name]

Lamma ... Surely you do not have double standards !!!

 

I have seen other topics in which you have argues with PPCs and you are always telling them to supply a copy of the particulars of claim, the defence and other docs...

 

Now you seem to be saying to people dont do it !!!!

Steve__M's post explains why claimants need to state the facts of a case.

 

Assuming the PPCs are the claimant, they must specify the points on which they are basing that claim.

 

Assuming the CAG forum member is the defendant - If they were to post the entirety of their defence, they are providing the PPC with more information than is necessary, ahead of any hearing.

 

Personally, I am of the view that the presentation of a solid defence would not be effected by exposure to the party making the claim. Others may hold a different view.

 

Either way, I would feel no obligation to provide information to someone that is attempting to take money away from me, unless required to do so by law.

[RichardM]

Lamma ... Surely you do not have double standards !!!

 

I have seen other topics in which you have argues with PPCs and you are always telling them to supply a copy of the particulars of claim, the defence and other docs...

 

Now you seem to be saying to people dont do it !!!!

 

Taken from another thread, with another person's point of view on the very same subject. Posted only today

 

As to Lamma having double standards, his requests for particulars of claim etc refer to PPC's providing details of cases which PPC's have claimed have already been heard and won by the PPC's. They are, therefore, already in the public domain. I doubt that he would expect the PPC's to be studid enough to publlish particulars of claims etc BEFORE they were heard. Funnily enough, I've yet to see the PPC's publish any details to back up even one of these claims that they have won properly contested cases.

 

Everyone who posts on these forums should be aware that there are lurkers (people who read the thread but do not post) not just from UKCPS but from other PPC's as well (Combined Parking Solutions for one).

 

It's why we advise that anything posted has it details washed. I've know of several people who have had their posts (or alleged posts) copied and the PPC have attempted to use the said posts to bring pressure to bear.

 

This site poses a problem for their operating model and must pee them off big style( :grin:)but those posting need to take care about what they reveal.:grin:

Edited October 13, 2008 by RichardM

[petej2811]

So when they rejected your appeal the letter gave the the opportunity to pay £25.00, it also states if you do not pay or contact them they will take it further.

 

Did you then come on here, get the advice to ignore them and were surprised when they did as they said and issued court proceedings.

 

If you would have contacted them within the 7-days and explained your financial problems them they may have offered you a payment plan .. but it is clear from your own posting they did offer you the chance to pay the reduced amount after rejecting your appeal.

 

[edited]

 

I think its clear that this is Skylet's thread where she's asking for advice and help.

 

It is also equally clear that you're not giving what those of us who finished school would call 'helpful advice' and/or support. Instead you seem to have found it your business to belittle her.

 

That's not helpful.

 

[edited]

 

[edited]

 

Good day.

 

Pete

Edited February 16, 2009 by jonni2bad

[angry_driver]

BUT ... what is a properly defended claim ?

 

As My_Real_Name has stated, having the defence in public, if it is a good one and legally sound then it shoudlnt matter who sees it (the parking company would see it anyway weeks before the hearing) !

 

The real reason I suspect a good defence is never put up, is no good defence exists SIMPLE.

 

Every case a parking company wins, the people on here and other sites will go on about it being a 'weak defence' .. even if their own people put it together.

 

If a case is lost, then why is the defence not posted - there are a few posts where 'good defences' have been submitted and the PPC has apparantly been too scared to attend ... but why havent those ever been submitted ??? (I think the all mighty petej2811 claims to have scared off AS-SecuriT .. but never procided any proof or details of his great defence, but yet everyone belives him without proof ... could it be that no proof exists !!!)

 

After all, those cases are all over, judgements given.

 

You cant be taken seriously when you have 1 rule for 1 and 1 rule for another....

 

Also, from a forum viewpoint how does the poster know it is the best defence ??? - If Lamma (no disrepect intended here) is such a hot shot lawyer/legal expert then he wouldnt be on here would he !!! .. and if hes not legally qualified why would someone rely on a layman to prepare their defence ?

 

The point about a forum is input from others, if a case is strong then it will win - always, if 1 or 100000 people see it.

Edited October 13, 2008 by angry_driver
quoted wrong person

[robin9342]

[My Real Name]

The real reason I suspect a good defence is never put up, is no good defence exists SIMPLE.

Here are some examples of good defences.

1. "I was not the driver" - I'm intending to rely on this one at the moment. Because I was not the driver, even though I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. Contractual obligations may not be conferred to a third party, and I am not obliged to name the driver, nor keep a record of drivers of the vehicle.
   
2. "The amount claimed is a penalty" - There is no remedy under contract law for breach, other than liquidated damages of losses incurred.
   

You may have examples of claims that would require a different defence. In which case, I feel confident that a solid defence could be posted by myself, or another poster.

[petej2811]

 

If a case is lost, then why is the defence not posted - there are a few posts where 'good defences' have been submitted and the PPC has apparantly been too scared to attend ... but why havent those ever been submitted ??? (I think the all mighty petej2811 claims to have scared off AS-SecuriT .. but never procided any proof or details of his great defence, but yet everyone belives him without proof ... could it be that no proof exists !!!)

 

 

 

.

 

I would, at this juncture, like to make it clear that I am not the Almighty.

 

It is nice, however, that PPCs seem to think that I am. I would be touched, only that verges on being creepy.

 

Did I see some troll spray?

 

P

[skyelet]

Here are some examples of good defences.

1. "I was not the driver" - I'm intending to rely on this one at the moment. Because I was not the driver, even though I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. Contractual obligations may not be conferred to a third party, and I am not obliged to name the driver, nor keep a record of drivers of the vehicle.
   
2. "The amount claimed is a penalty" - There is no remedy under contract law for breach, other than liquidated damages of losses incurred.
   

You may have examples of claims that would require a different defence. In which case, I feel confident that a solid defence could be posted by myself, or another poster.

 

thanks but the "i was not the driver" is not a valid argument, as i have already appealed on the basis that i was the driver, well rather my husband was, and we were unable to park elsewhere.... this kind of admits we were the driver of the vehicle at the time

[skyelet]

okay simply for the fact that i know the PPC is going to see my defence anyway, and i would like some help in perfecting it before i write it on the paper

 

my defence is as follows...

 

 

1) The Defendant categorically rejects the Claimant's assertions that he has entered into a contract and/or other arrangement with the Claimant whereby he has agreed to pay a charge of £50 as asserted by the Claimant.

2) In the event that a contract had been formed between the Defendant and the Claimant it is submitted that the damages for breach of contract are strictly limited to the losses suffered by Claimant araising from the breach. The Defendant submits that the loss suffered in these circumstances by the Claimant is £0, being that there is no charge for parking at that location. It is submitted that it is well established in the law that "fines" are not applicable under contract law by inter alia, Wilson v. Love (1896), Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd (1915), and Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915). It is submitted that in these cases, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party and was, therefore, a penalty. It is submitted that the charges sought to be recovered by the Claimant also constitue an unlawful contractual penalty.

3) The Defendant further submits that, in the event that a contract had been formed with the Claimant, which is denied, the sum of £50 is not a genuine pre-estimate of the Claimant's loss but is instead a figure plucked arbitrarily out of the air.

4) The Defendant submits that the original Penalty Charge Notice ( issued 16.07.08 ) was issued under section 5. Vehicle parked in a space designated for registered disabled "blue badge" holders but a valid blue badge was not displayed. However, the Claimant states in a reply to an appeal sent on 21.07.08 states that they are charging the Defendant on the basis that he was parked on double yellow lines.

5) The Defendant further submits that both bay markings and double yellow lines painted on tarmac within private land owners grounds, are not legally significant and are not sactioned under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

[My Real Name]

thanks but the "i was not the driver" is not a valid argument, as i have already appealed on the basis that i was the driver, well rather my husband was, and we were unable to park elsewhere.... this kind of admits we were the driver of the vehicle at the time

I was not intending to provide you with a defense, but to provide angry_driver with examples of good defenses, so please accept my apologies for derailing your thread.

 

I think that others have already pointed out in the thread that a possible defence is that they are entitled to a remedy for breach of contract (if you are prepared to accept that such a contract exists) of liquidated damages of actual losses incurred.

[skyelet]

ye thanks my_real_name you can read my defence above

[TheChancellor]

thanks but the "i was not the driver" is not a valid argument, as i have already appealed on the basis that i was the driver, well rather my husband was, and we were unable to park elsewhere.... this kind of admits we were the driver of the vehicle at the time

 

If he was the driver why did you receive the summons?

[lamma]

me, double standards ? No. i think every post of mine is about not giving into the con game that PPCs pull. Far too many unknowing victims but that is changing all the time with the readership here and in other places. Going on the offensive against unlawful and illegal activities is a good thing to do. Not showing your cards is also a wise thing. Amazing how easy the pro PPC posts are to spot isn't it ? Anyone who knows how to put a proper defense together will never put examples up in public - especially before a case. How do I know this ? "I just do"

[Al27]

thanks but the "i was not the driver" is not a valid argument, as i have already appealed on the basis that i was the driver, well rather my husband was, and we were unable to park elsewhere.... this kind of admits we were the driver of the vehicle at the time

 

They are taking YOU to court. Any alleged contract is between the driver at the time and the PPC - and it is up to them to prove who it was. You are under no obligation to reveal the driver.

You need to look at the other points in the JPEGs I emailed you earlier regarding their inability to prove who was the driver and add them to your defence.

 

Please don't post it here

[skyelet]

lamma, as has already been stated above, the claimant will get a copy of my defence well before it even goes to a hearing so im not too bothered that they may see it before they get it off the court officially,...

 

thechancellor, we live at the same address, we are man and wife not seperated or anything... i deal with all paperwork in the house so i do state that i am dealing with it... sorry for confusion

[RichardM]

Skyelet.

 

There is a huge difference in who was driving at the time. You may be husband and wife, and you may take responsibility for the household paperwork but, you are not one entity.

 

They are taking YOU to court as the registered keeper. (They admitted as much in their initial letter to you). If your husband and not you was driving at the time, they are taking the wrong person to court, and that is an absolute defence in itself). The fact that you were in the car at the time of the alleged breach of contract is neither here nor there. You were not in control of the vehicle at the time and could, therefore, not have entered into any contract to be in breach of said alleged contract.

[lamma]

absolutely.

[MrShed]

And just to add that you have no obligation to reveal the driver, as this is a civil matter.

[skyelet]

sorry, im not the registered keeper of the vehicle, i cant even drive, my husband owns the car, and is the registered keeper, he was driving... the court papers have been issued to " our surname " so i assume that means to him, but i am dealng with it on his behalf...

 

hope this clears up the driver/keeper issue

[MrShed]

Well they need to specify a recipient surely...?