Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 15th Sep 17, 2:41 PM
    • 24Posts
    • 9Thanks
    meagainin
    ES Parking Enforcment Ltd Ticket face down charge notice
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:41 PM
    ES Parking Enforcment Ltd Ticket face down charge notice 15th Sep 17 at 2:41 PM
    The driver use a car park where you have to input your car reg to get a ticket which you then display in your window.

    I've recently received a charge notice because the a valid pay and display ticket was not displayed..
    EDIT Photo's shown when I was trying to appeal the decision show a number of tickets on my dashboard, most the right way up with one flipped, which isn't the ticket in question. Looks like the ticket for the day had been dislodged from the dashboard at some point.

    The letter states that the reason for issue is: Ticket face down -Did not pay and display a pre paid voucher or place it on view.

    The driver has still got the pay and display ticket which shows they'd paid the valid fee for the time the charge notice relates to. I've never had a parking charge notice before and I'm not sure what to do next. Am I liable for this charge? Is there any point appealing?

    ES Parking are members of BPA according to their letter.
    Last edited by meagainin; 22-01-2018 at 10:38 PM. Reason: Additional info
Page 2
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 5th Dec 17, 7:54 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    Thanks, Claxtome, I borrowed a bit from your response so it's me that should be thanking you
    The rest came from the newbies faq.

    I need to get this submitted before 9/12, is there anything else I should add?

    When I was trying to upload my appeal, there were other photos shown (which I stupidly didn't get a screenshot of) which showed a number of tickets in the window, one was flipped but when I checked the number on it, it wasn't the ticket from the 1/9.
    It looks like the ticket for 1/9 did actually fall off the dashboard and wasn't just face down. I'm wondering if the fact that the other tickets were on the dash but this one wasn't will be an issue when it goes to court?
    Last edited by meagainin; 05-12-2017 at 8:04 AM.
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 5th Dec 17, 1:40 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    bumped to see if anything else is required.
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 5th Dec 17, 7:30 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    Another bump, I'll be submitting this tomorrow so any advice would be appreciated.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th Dec 17, 1:57 AM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    I need to get this submitted before 9/12, is there anything else I should add?
    Suggest you attach a copy of the actual ticket. Otherwise I can't think of anything (but I am no expert) unless you found anything in the billinghamn thread I gave you a link to in post #19 you want to include. Their response meant business. Having said that don't be surprised you don't just get back a roboclaim response like billinghamn did.

    Summary - The response to a LBC and any replies should be seen by a judge, if it goes that far, so this is your opportunity to have your say.

    When I was trying to upload my appeal, there were other photos shown (which I stupidly didn't get a screenshot of) which showed a number of tickets in the window, one was flipped but when I checked the number on it, it wasn't the ticket from the 1/9.
    It looks like the ticket for 1/9 did actually fall off the dashboard and wasn't just face down. I'm wondering if the fact that the other tickets were on the dash but this one wasn't will be an issue when it goes to court?
    Are you saying the reverse of tickets at the car park in question is printed something unique for each ticket? (I have only seen the reverse of 1 ticket for the car park in question for me).
    Bear in mind the driver of your vehicle got a valid ticket for the day which includes the registration of the vehicle so you have proof you paid for parking on the day. Any anomalies with displaying the ticket is de minimis
    Last edited by claxtome; 06-12-2017 at 2:18 AM.
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 6th Dec 17, 4:14 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    Thanks, I'll see if I can attach a copy of the ticket. I've had a look at the link you gave me and I'll be adding the bit about a valid ticket but I wasn't sure if the Schedule 4 POFA stuff was relevant to me, though thinking about it I think I might be mixing that up with POPLA appeals.
    Looks like I need to go back and read through that again.
    It looks like each ticket has its own individual number on the front and back of the ticket. I know this because I tend to keep my tickets for a period of time and I have a bunch of them in my car.
    My ticket does include my registration number so hopefully when I have my day in court the Judge will agree with me.
    Thanks again for the help, it's really appreciated.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 12th Jan 18, 4:56 AM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    Did you get a reply from the Claimant to your LBC response?
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 17th Jan 18, 11:00 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    No response to my LBC response except a lovely county court claim form.
    I've acknowledged the claim and now I need to get my reading head on again and start formulating my defence.
    Last edited by meagainin; 17-01-2018 at 11:05 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jan 18, 11:04 PM
    • 54,103 Posts
    • 67,777 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, you will be fine, as everyone here is, win or lose there is no CCJ or 'risk', as such.

    People who stick around here and are fully coached from defence to hearing, all the way through, have approx 1% risk of losing and paying in the end. The 99% who win (counting people who are fully assisted here, not people who are ostriches, or take a defence & run) usually say they enjoyed the experience, and they can usually claim their costs.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 17th Jan 18, 11:20 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    Thanks for your words of encouragement, I'm panicking slightly but hoping that I end up in the 99%.
    Looking at some of the other threads, I'm not the only person ESPL is taking to court for a fluttering ticket.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 18th Jan 18, 8:10 AM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    I'm not the only person ESPL is taking to court for a fluttering ticket
    No you are not. I know of at least one other than you and me currently and a few in the past.
    (You almost think they make their tickets flimsy on purpose to try and sting us for money )

    I go to court at the end of March.

    Will try to help where I can and remember my thread hopefully should help get you a base defence.
    Some might say it is a bit wordy but see what you think.

    Remember my defence may not all apply to you.
    (especially the 'Planning permission for signage' as specific to the car park in question for me only).
    So carefully cut/edit it for your case as the NEWBIE thread suggests
    Last edited by claxtome; 18-01-2018 at 8:14 AM.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 18th Jan 18, 9:41 AM
    • 1,905 Posts
    • 3,137 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Yesterday in Staines County Court:

    D3GF4P9D Private Parking Solutions London -v- A, before DJ Hammond

    The DJ identified that the whole case turned on the fact that a ticket had been purchased, and declined to delve into any other arguments.


    The ticket had been placed face down on the dashboard, so the PPC were entitled to issue the PCN. However, when they were shown the evidence, and proof of purchase of the ticket, they could not penalise the driver !!!8211; the Beavis case made it clear that a charge which would otherwise be a penalty, could be upheld if it acted as a deterrent against breach. That did not apply here, as there was nothing to deter.


    The case was dismissed, although the Defendant had to pay some costs because they had ignored all previous correspondence and hadn't appealed.


    This is definitely an argument to use when they raise Beavis.


    It doesn't matter that they rejected your appeal, you tried.


    It is very significant that they ignored your response to the LBC. I posted a suggested letter on another thread yesterday advising the D to write and ask the court to stay the claim - if you search my posts you'll find it. I'd do the same here.
    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.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 18th Jan 18, 10:39 AM
    • 1,905 Posts
    • 3,137 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73731129&postcount=13
    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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 21st Jan 18, 4:29 AM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    A couple of flipped ticket cases gone to court this week where the judge sided with the defendant:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5779740

    In the first you can see why it is important to Appeal and not ignore letters.

    Don't give up hope
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 21st Jan 18, 4:56 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    First draft of my defence, any advice would be appreciated.
    Introduction
    1. I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is XXXXX!
    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
    3. The claim states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This information has been formally requested but not supplied by the claimant’s representative (Gladstones Solicitors). Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
    Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case. “
    Preliminary Matters

    1. The Claimant has not complied with its obligations set out in the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. This prevents the Defendant understanding the claim and filing a full defence, because a parking charge can be for trespass or breach of contract, both of which are treated differently in law and require a different defence. If a claim in contract, the Claimant has not explained what it claims the terms of that contract were or how it was entered into. No copy of the alleged contract has been provided to the Defendant.

    1.1 The Particulars of Claim breach the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached and breach CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a “Parking Charge Notice” with no further explanation; the Claimant thus fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; they are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

    1.2 The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence. Research indicated they are the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    1.3 In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    1.4 On the 27/07/2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the claim was struck out.

    1.5 There are other similar examples which could be produced.

    2. The Defendant endeavoured to appeal the postal Parking Charge Notice online via the Claimant's website with a copy of the ticket displayed on the day, however the website rejected the appeal due to the size of the photograph even though the Defendant resized the photograph more than once. When then Defendant tried again on 2 October 2017 the claimant's website would not allow the appeal to be submitted and stated that the notice was more than 21 days old and therefore no longer subject to appeal. This was incorrect and in contravention of the Claimant's Accredited Operator Code of Practice which states in Part B, Section 6 that Operators should 'Allow a minimum of 21 days from imposition for the motorist to lodge an appeal with you and make representations' . IPC Code of Practice - see Schedule 4.


    2.1. The Claimant sent a Letter Before Claim to the Defendant on [Date]. In a response on [Date], the Defendant provided a copy of the ticket displayed on the day providing the Claimant with clear evidence that the Defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood.

    2.2 Provision of a copy of the ticket displayed on the day in the Defendant's response gave the Claimant a clear opportunity to act reasonably and cancel the charge. The Claimant failed to respond or acknowledge the Defendant's reply to the Letter Before Claim.

    2.3 The above constitutes a direct breach of Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols; specifically - paragraph 3 (Objectives), 6(a) and (c) (Steps before issuing a claim) and 8 (Settlement and ADR). As such the court's attention is drawn to the sanctions set out in paragraphs 13 - 16.

    2.4 The Claimant’s conduct is also a direct breach of the International Parking Community ("IPC") Code of Practice ("CoP"), Part B, Section 6. The CoP is effectively regulation for the private parking industry, as found by the Supreme Court in the Beavis Case.

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict “keeper liability” provisions.

    3.1. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a “relevant obligation” and “relevant contract”, fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

    4. The Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action and disregard of pre-court protocol.

    4.1 Alternatively, the Defendant asks that court makes an order requiring the Claimant to file compliant Particulars, to include at least the following:
    a) Whether the claim is for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    b) A copy of any contract it is alleged was entered into and how (e.g. copies of signage)
    c) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with documents they rely on in having standing to bring this claim
    d) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed and calculated
    e) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    4.2 Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.


    Background

    The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

    5. If the claim is brought for breach of contract, the Defendant paid and displayed a ticket so all details could be seen, and was in place when the car was locked and left parked.!

    5.1 If the parking ticket flipped over or became dislodged, the Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which this happened or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

    5.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:
    a) A gust of wind may have later flipped the flimsy paper over, despite the windows & doors being locked.
    b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to flip over, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
    c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

    5.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

    5.4 Notwithstanding the above, the flimsiness of the ticket certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant, who must be well aware of the problem, which has become known as ''fluttering tickets''. Because they profit from drivers' misfortune caused by their own tickets' inability to withstand British weather, it is averred that this Claimant wilfully failed to address this issue (e.g. by adding sticky backing to the ticket, allowing it to be fixed in place).

    5.5 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, giving due consideration to the flimsiness of the piece of paper provided, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

    5.6 In C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H (14/11/2016 Port Talbot) in which a claim was dismissed due to a ticket that had turned upside down. The judge dismissed the claim and ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6 -10 of these type of case.

    5.7 The term, ‘A valid ticket must be purchased to park on this site and be displayed clearly in your front windscreen’ in particular the meaning of ‘displayed clearly’ is not transparent per Section 68 of the CRA 2015. Where contract terms have different meanings Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that any uncertainty must be resolved in favour of the consumer.

    5.7 A valid ticket was displayed in the front windscreen of the Defendant’s vehicle. If the Claimant wanted to impose a different term to require the ticket to be displayed in a prescribed manner (e.g. face up), then the terms should have stated this clearly and unequivocally.!

    5.8 The Claimant does not dispute that the driver purchased a ticket, that it gave them a licence to park for the entire day.


    Limited Contract
    6. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract to pay £100 or any sum at all. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read and it is not believed that such terms were proclaimed with the tariffs at the machine. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which the Claimant is a member), clearly obliges the Claimant to display legible signs in appropriate locations.

    Locus Standi

    7. The Claimant has failed to establish its legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd.

    7.1 Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

    No Advertising Consent for Signage

    8. The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy and pursuant to the doctrine, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on unlawful signage. The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 and ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.

    8.1 In addition, the Claimant is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.


    Claimant is seeking a penalty and inflated costs

    9. The Claimant seeks £160 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable particularly because the Defendant has shown the driver did purchase a valid ticket and the Claimant has suffered no loss, and because any breach of contract (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis.

    9.2 £60 of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) the Claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which amounts to double charging, which the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows. Any term allowing for the Claimant to pursue such additional charges must be void for uncertainty. In any event, such charges must be covered by the addition of the discounted element of the charge after a driver has failed to pay within 14 days (£40).

    9.3 There is no possible commercial justification for the Claimant to found an action based on such a trivial error. The Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] Judges at the Court of Appeal stated that in that case there was a commercial justification as it was free car park and the Claimant 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 earned from the purchase of tickets for an agreed period of time.

    9.4 The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well ware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid and that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred either. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

    9.5 The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”.. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

    9.6 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever

    10. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds.!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jan 18, 9:12 PM
    • 54,103 Posts
    • 67,777 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No need for an address in a defence, the Court/Claimant know it already:

    My address for service is XXXXX

    And you can't use point #3 and 3.1 about the POFA/keeper liability, if you already admitted in the earlier appeal and earlier comms, who was driving. If you did, or implied it, don't have a POFA section in defence and just defend as driver.

    #4 seems to interrupt the flow of the facts of the defence, then you suddenly have a heading 'background' which goes back to the same waffly stuff in #1.

    I would suggest #1 should be the facts supporting the defence (suggested heading).

    i.e.

    Facts supporting the defence
    1. the Defendant admits that the car was parked at the location indicated, but denies that any sum is owed by way of a parking charge because a apy & display ticket (PDT) was purchased to cover the parking time.

    1.1. No relevant contract or relevant obligation was breached. The PDT was displayed when parking.

    1.2. The Defendant was surprised to find a PCN when returning to the vehicle later, and the Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:



    ...then continue with the info you currently have at #5 and #2.



    Then add any extra points, like the stuff about the penalty/inflated claim, and (much shorter and less waffle) about lack of particulars, at the end where you ask for sequential service of witness evidence, rather than exchange.

    Here's a (different facts!) defence I wrote, you might want to grab parts of this? Posters are welcome to use any of it, and it includes a generic (suitable for any defence) reference to a court's duty to consider unfairness, even of the price, if an onerous term is not transparent:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73663604#post73663604

    It also has the stuff about sequential service of witness evidence, towards the end.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-01-2018 at 9:14 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 21st Jan 18, 9:38 PM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    I wouldn't include section 8 unless you know for definite they don't have planning permission for signage for the car park in question.

    For my similar case I know they did have planning permission but ran out before the day in question.
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 22nd Jan 18, 10:36 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    Thanks for your help. I want to make sure that I don't miss out anything important but at this point I'm not quite sure whether some parts are important or not.
    I'd had a look at some other posters who are also defending fluttering ticket claims and tried to use theirs as a template but I can appreicate that it's not as good as it should be.

    Should #2 -2.4 be in there? I wanted to defend why the I didn't appeal the NTK and also show that Gladstones hadn't provided the information requested in my response to their Letter Before Action.

    The driver's details haven't been disclosed so I'm guessing I can keep #3 & 3.1 in but put under where it says 'The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:'?

    I'll have a good read of the link you sent me and see what I can do to improve my defence.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 23rd Jan 18, 7:03 AM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    Should #2 -2.4 be in there?
    Yes would put it in where it looks best.
    Be wary I fell into the trap of writing long defences so see if you can reduce the length.

    The driver's details haven't been disclosed so I'm guessing I can keep #3 & 3.1 in but put under where it says 'The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:'?
    After doing what Coupon-Mad suggested put it in where it flows best.

    Coupon-mad It looks like the OP is using a version of my defence. Loadsofchildren123 suggested to have a preliminary section but you are suggesting to remove it.
    I am not complaining just point it out as trying to help the OP.
    • meagainin
    • By meagainin 23rd Jan 18, 2:27 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    meagainin
    Hi Claxtome thanks for your input, I'll have a read through and see where I think it goes best.
    I'm assuming I should put my strongest argument first?

    Yours was one of those I used along with a couple of others and the BMPA robodefence. I found them all helpful but I've probably left in parts that weren't necessarily relevant to me and/or misunderstood other bits. I'm still a fair way off understanding the ins and outs of all of this.

    I'm going to leave #8 in for the time being as I'm going to investigate further.

    One other query, which sounds pointless now I think about it but I have to ask.
    When I was trying to appeal there were a more few photos of my dashboard which showed about 4-5 tickets all of which were the right way up except one which had flipped (sadly not the ticket for the day in question).
    Would it be worth pointing out that the majority of the tickets on my dashboard for other days were the right way up, which would (in my mind anyway) suggest that on the balance of probabilities the one placed on my dashboard on the day would also have been placed correctly?
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 23rd Jan 18, 10:50 PM
    • 518 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    claxtome
    I'm assuming I should put my strongest argument first?
    Usually best to do this once you have set the scene.

    When I was trying to appeal there were a more few photos of my dashboard which showed about 4-5 tickets all of which were the right way up except one which had flipped (sadly not the ticket for the day in question).
    Would it be worth pointing out that the majority of the tickets on my dashboard for other days were the right way up, which would (in my mind anyway) suggest that on the balance of probabilities the one placed on my dashboard on the day would also have been placed correctly?
    Not 100% sure that the multiple ticket argument is a strong one when there is one flipped.
    Either way I would save that for your WS. Where you can give your opinions.
    I would briefly mention in your defence where you left the ticket you had paid for the day.

    You left your car with it displayed and would leave up to the parking firm to prove that there wasn't a valid ticket on the dashboard when they checked. (Innocent until proven guilty). See my defence in this area
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,139Posts Today

7,523Users online

Martin's Twitter