Defence mitigating circumstances

nosferatu1001

IamEmanresu - irrelevant, there is now a live claim.

Stacey - what is the ISSUE DATE of the claim? State it clearly here. You have 33 days from the ISSUE DATE for the court to receive your defence.

You do not simply go on "mitigating" circumstances. They set the colour of the scene, and as said will explain why signs should be very very clear, but they are not your only point.

As you will have seen from reading Gladstones DEFENCES, they do NOT abide by court rules when setting up a claim. Those are the references to CPR and PD you will have seen. So that's your starting point. Secondly they WILL have added a whole load of made up charges to it, bringing it to around £300? As these charges are pure fantasy, again you have another attack. Two already and we haven't even gotten to any actual details of your case - amazing yeah?

You go the normal route - they must prove
1) Standing
2) Signage was clear and capable of binding a distressed motorist looking to drop their child into A&E to a punitive contract
3) that there was a commercial incentive for the LANDHOLDER otherwise this is a clear penalty. The supreme court case of PE vs BEAVIS helps you here, because they made the commercial requirement clear as to why this was no longer a penalty - which cannot be enforced - and a charge that could be (awful decision anyway, but hey, water, bridge etc).

For 1):
This is where they prove they have a contract with the landowner - or a chain of contracts that reach back to the landholder - that specifically entitle them to offer parking contracts and to pursue to court in their own name. Without this they have no standing i.e. any interest to bring a court claim.

To expand - you parked in a lay by, was this a lay by on adopted i.e. council maintained highway? Was it clearly delineated as private? Where were any signs (for 2) below? Have you checked that the lay by is definitely private land, and not just a part of the highway - which a lay by would normally be?

For 2) :
We need to see EXACTLY what the signs say. Go back and take pictures.
The signs are likely to say "residents only" or "no parking - residents only" or "permit holders only"..... -> this means they *forbid* anyone except residents / permit holders from parking.

Their claim will be that the driver entered into a contract - in fact if they claim Beavis applies, they HAVE to make this claim, as that is both sides agreed, that there was a contract - however a contract requires three elements - offer, acceptance, consideration (exchange of value i.e. paying money to park). If they forbid you from parking, they never offer you parking. If they said "parking here is £100, but for residents it is free" or something else, then there would be an arguable offer, but the IPC firms are incredibly stupid and dont understand that basic requirement of a contract. If there is no offer, there can be no contract - meaning that not only do you attack signage as one point for not being prominent enough, you havea second point on signage stating that even if the court finds it was prominent enough, that no contract was ever offered.

Staceyplindfield

The issue date is 26 July, charges are £160 parking charge, £6.67 s69, 8% pa £0.04 per day court fee £25, legal representation £50

Quentin

If you have inadvertently used your real name as your forum name then you need to get MSE to change it to something anonymous.

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your thread against you

Staceyplindfield

there is a sign when entering on a lamppost which says private road and grounds authorised access only then another sign above with parking restrictions , it won't let me copy/paste pic......?

Quentin

New users can't post images.

Host them somewhere like imgur and post the URL disguised by replacing http with hxxp and someone will post a link for you

Staceyplindfield

Hxx://m.imgur.com/a/7uT4b

Quentin

http://m.imgur.com/a/7uT4b

Coupon-mad

That's a good defence point among others.

Tiny writing on damaged signs, where £100 is not in the large lettering that impressed the short-sighted Supreme Court judges in PE v Beavis. One sign is damaged and placed on the side of a brick wall not facing the cars, and another sign on a pole with so much foliage behind it that anyone parking there can't see or even guess about the existence of any sign at all, especially when stressed about taking a child to A&E.

Of course you have a case, usual defence points you see in other threads, plus an introduction and heading about the fact this was an emergency visit to Hospital (is that carpark within the NHS site, is it staff houses or something?).

Geoff1963

If they forbid you from parking, they never offer you parking. If they said "parking here is £100, but for residents it is free" or something else, then there would be an arguable offer, but the IPC firms are incredibly stupid and don't understand that basic requirement of a contract.

:T
A very key point ; something is either forbidden, or there is a charge for it.

Staceyplindfield

I am attempting to get a defence together, but having read so much am confusing myself so please bear with my inexperience, and thank you for the help received so far.
Although I disregarded the first letter from drp, (offence was was 19 Dec and unsure of when that first correspondence was received, included the picture of the vehicle) I then received a letter from drp dated 07/03/17 , I have written to Dvla requesting information on details that were requested and until a reply am I right in assuming I can't add Pofa to my defence.?

They are claiming the case vine vs London borough of Waltham, can I counter this with beavis?

Do I write a sec 18 - ? There is a template on newbies requesting further details that the client intends to rely on and how the charge has been justified? And ask them for the identity of landowner contract oR as I have already received court papers this is not necessary and use this point as a defence?

So far my defence will include poor signage/mitigating circumstances/contract/robo claims in which I will post