IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
fluttering ticket going to court
Comments
-
Beavis: the distinguishing point is the revenue. In Beavis it was a free car park, so the court decided that the PPC was entitled to make revenue by issuing charges for overstays. Plus the commercial justification point - the whole issue of the 2/3 hour stay was to prevent overstays in order ensure a turnover of vehicles at the retail park. A P&D car park is obviously completely different.
Proof of postage: it doesn't matter, you can still say you posted it. You are your evidence on this point. If you say you posted it then they'd have to prove (on balance of probabilities) that you are lying. The assumption is a letter is received 2 days after posting (if sent first class).
The different code on the back of the ticket: argue the point anyway, the code must mean something.
The refusal to accept your appeal/ignoring it is a serious breach of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. You would say that the appeal is a form of ADR which they unreasonably refused. this should be added to your prelim matters section as another reason to stay/dismiss.
Contract/Rule 16 point: you are right. However, documents like this should have been produced at the pre-action phase (para 6(c) of the Practice Direction).
I'll try and look through the defence later. When does it have to be in by?Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
Thank you Loadsofchildren123
The defence doesn't need to be in for a couple of weeks however I am multi tasking another case (thread on here about 1 big car park) which is due to go to court in less than 3 weeks.0 -
I knew your name was familiar!!!Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0
-
I just hope it is not infamousI knew your name was familiar!!!
0 -
I have ignored ticket and now have solictors ringing do I pay or fight0
-
I would always fight but don't know your case at all.I have ignored ticket and now have solictors ringing do I pay or fight.
LB1999 please look at the NEWBIES thread for advice.
If after reading the NEWBIES thread you don't find your answer please can you create your own thread by clicking on the 'New Thread' button
Either way please can you remove your last post from my thread.
0 -
LoadsofChildren123 reply to your last post #32 is quoted below:
My suggestion with this after reading my V3 of the defence is to add a new 10.3 and shuffle the existing down further to 10.4 etc:Beavis: the distinguishing point is the revenue. In Beavis it was a free car park, so the court decided that the PPC was entitled to make revenue by issuing charges for overstays. Plus the commercial justification point - the whole issue of the 2/3 hour stay was to prevent overstays in order ensure a turnover of vehicles at the retail park. A P&D car park is obviously completely different.
10.3 There is no possible commercial justification for such a trivial error for the Claimant. The Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] Judges at the Court of Appeal stated there was a commercial justification as it was free car park and needed to prevent overstays of the free 2 hour stay. Whereas in this case the car park is a Pay and Display car park where revenue is gained as people need to pay to park there for an agreed period of time.
good pointProof of postage: it doesn't matter, you can still say you posted it. You are your evidence on this point. If you say you posted it then they'd have to prove (on balance of probabilities) that you are lying. The assumption is a letter is received 2 days after posting (if sent first class).
I have struggled to find again a defence which ran with this. My 'draft' suggestions is a new 3.6->The different code on the back of the ticket: argue the point anyway, the code must mean something
3.6 The Claimant’s own evidence will show a serial number on the back on the ticket displayed in the dashboard of the car. The Claimant is held to account as to why it can’t trace the details of pay and display ticket from this.
Point 4 of Draft V3 is currently not in my prelim section so will need movingThe refusal to accept your appeal/ignoring it is a serious breach of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. You would say that the appeal is a form of ADR which they unreasonably refused. this should be added to your prelim matters section as another reason to stay/dismiss.
In Draft V3 I have reworded this part as point 1Contract/Rule 16 point: you are right. However, documents like this should have been produced at the pre-action phase (para 6(c) of the Practice Direction).0 -
Just been looking at my sister thread and found out that the PPC planning permission for signage ran out 3 months before the fateful day. Therefore can add this as another argument to my defence and therefore include a DPA section as well (just like my other '1 big car park' thread).0
-
It's 'advertising consent' that applies to signage, not 'planning permission'. I wouldn't have thought it would be time-limited, but you obviously have the source confirming it.
No case that I have read has seen any judge get overly excited about this. There have been some case reported here where a judge has said that as not having advertising consent is a criminal offence, if the enforcing authority (the council) can't be bothered to prosecute, then he wasn't going to get involved at civil level.
Whether to put it in or not? Probably won't do you any harm, but not likely to help much - but I thought you were looking to shorten your defence.
See if LoC has any views on it.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Fair enough Umkomaas will trust your judgement to not include advertising consent. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards