Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them

KeithP

Question1, you would be wise to start your own thread.

Trying to address the issues of more than one person in a single thread can only lead to confusion.

But you know that already. It has already been mentioned several times in this thread.

Fruitcake

question1 wrote: »

I followed advice I had read on here to dispute an parking fine from PCM on the grounds it was excessive. I used the template letter, and have now got back a rejection letter from PCM Ltd (as expected) telling me to look up the Bevis vs ParkingEye case.

In this thread, which I've only just found, it advises against that. But what happens if I have tried that and its been rejected. What's the best course of action now?

This thread is for information about court defences, and what not to put in them. It's not about the next stage in your appeal process. This is covered in the NEWBIES and you should start your own separate thread if you need further help.

If you appealed as keeper, you shouldn't be telling people here who was driving/who parked, or in your own thread if/when you start one.

question1

OK thanks, will start a new thread now.

Gliderider

I've recently received an anpr pcn from parking eye for an overstay in a store carpark. I suffer from frequent bouts of migraine, I have medication from my GP. On the date in question I had a severe migraine and couldn't drive until my vision and headache cleared. Is this a relevant defence?

KeithP

Gliderider, you would be wise to start your own thread.

Trying to address the issues of more than one person in a single thread can only lead to confusion.

But you know that already. It has already been mentioned several times in this thread.

And no, that isn't a relevant defence. It's a mitigating circumstance.

The_Deep

What on earth convinced Gliderider that this was an appropriate thread on which to post?

nosferatu1001

Keith - yes it is a defend. Frustration of contract. Change in circumstance meant the vehicle could not be driven. It would have been an offence to do so I believe.
But it really shouldn't be here. Glider obviousl6 start a new thread.

Martin101

I am now listed for court and have used in my defence statement - not yet my witness statement - an issue with the photographic evidence - i.e. i.e. that the picture is very dark could actually have been taken anywhere and shows a dark car in a car park - too dark to make out the car (no reg plate in the photo) and too dark to evidence whether a valid permit was present or not - is this line worth perusing?
Linked to the same point - although i don't have photos on the evening there was no lighting in the area parked and therefore if signage was in situ it could not be seen or is see read? Any advance welcomed

KeithP

Martin, why have you abandoned your original thread?

Martin101

I was not sure how to link it to this thread