Will they go to court or not?

KeithP

Do we really need a second thread?

If you feel we do, then please add a link to your existing thread.

Quentin

Your daughter shouldn't miss the deadline now given - it will open up the route for pe to obtain a win by default.

But get a board guide to merge your threads!

rizla01

I have added link to previious thread now

Quentin

Please get them merged.

You can see how busy this forum is and you can't expect us to switch between your threads to get the full story

[Deleted User]

This is simple. The only absolute way to avoid going to court is to compromise the claim.
(that is likely to mean paying up).

1. Since the parking company has got this far, I would not expect them to offer a discount to settle the case now.
2. You could offer a settlement by way of a without prejudice settlement proposal, but proceedings are now "live" and they may fancy their chances.
3. Since proceedings are "live" you are unlikely to be on the hook for very much more than you are already, so most forumites would advocate that you now crack on and defend this case.

Defence

31 January 2018 is lots of time. This will take you a couple of hours, tops. I've not seen your paperwork, but it may be worth trying to submit a wholly new defence (so long as it is consistent with the one already filed). You can omit clever arguments about the driver/the keeper as that is (in effect) already conceded - albeit not signed with a statement of truth. You are where you are, so keep it simple.

I've not trawled two threads, but what did the blinking sign say?
If you weren't aware that moving your car from parking in the retail shop area to the restaurant area consituted the same "parking event" the chances are that the signs weren't adequate. Do they say, for example 'no return within 1 hour' or prohibit moving the car and re-parking? Is there any chance from the parking layout that this could be regarded as two car parks that shared a single entrance?

Remember that parking eye merely time entry and exits from the premises not parking. As such, if the KFC is in a separate corner of the signs stopped or some other such reason this may be perfectly defensible.

If the Court accepts that these were two discrete parking episodes and you did not merely move your car 10 spaces along to dodge the system that may make it highly defensible.

rizla01

Wrongly perhaps but I started a new thread as many would have thought that only CM should be responding and no one else was (Apart from your goodself) and I have some questions that need immediate answers, such as 'Is it permissible to add to or change her defence as the 1st statement wasnt signed?

She has only sent in facts without and defence or argument and I dont know what should have been said

Umkomaas

Wrongly perhaps but I started a new thread as many would have thought that only CM should be responding and no one else was (Apart from your goodself) and I have some questions that need immediate answers, such as 'Is it permissible to add to or change her defence as the 1st statement wasnt signed?

I think you might have an incorrect assumption that this is a forum dealing with legal matters at county court level. It is patently not its origin, which was to help motorists fight private parking charges at base level. Most regulars will all help at that level, but not many (perhaps 4 or 5) will get involved at the serious end of this continuum and advise on court cases and processes.

The fact is more and more county court cases are raining down on us every day, but there has been no increase in advisers who have county court experience. Posting parallel threads is unlikely to stimulate any more input, given the caseload already being handled.

Today, as at 6.55pm, the forum has already dealt with 84 separate cases. It will be nearer 100 by the time the night is over. It’s worse than your average A&E!

rizla01

Umkommas.

Thanks for the explanation, I didn't realise.

Perhaps its time to throw myself at the mercy of PE then.
Sadly too much sh One T all at the same time has taken effect so maybe best to put it down to experience and pay up!

Thanks for taking the time tho.
:beer:

[Deleted User]

I make no guarantee that this works, but you could construct an argument thus:

1. In principle, if in a drive thru parking bay or (even better, just in the queue and within the yellow ring - in the part that is KFC only she was no longer shopping and was at the restaurant. It's more complex if she was merely in another bay nearer it.
2. The parking event was over. She had, to all intents and purposes, left. She was no longer in the parking area (at all), not the bay that she had parked in, nor occupying any of the access roads around or between the parking bays.
3. She availed herself of the opportunity to obtain a takeaway as she was leaving. The approach of PE would appear to preclude this (which cannot have been the intention of the contracing parties that employ them)
4. The signage states specifically SHOPPING and on any interpretation she was using a RESTAURANT. It was either (a) not part of the site in question (precluding any ticket) or if a part of a single site (b) not included within the restriction, the Defendant having complied with the requirement to have moved her car and ceased shopping.
5. The issue is that the location of the camera covers a single point of access, not the parking area it is intended to enforce. That failing is a failing of the system designed by and operated by the Claimant, not the Defendant.

Interestingly the Google Maps images are bang up to date. There are few repeater signs and, more so, none in the immediate area of the KFC or on the drive thru gantry warning that the restrictions continue to apply.

[Deleted User]

In small claims most unrepresented parties get a degree of leeway.

I'd have a go at submitting a full and detailed defence signed off. There is no reason not to: If it's struck out you've lost nothing as you are still potentially on the hook to pay the Claimant with your more limited unsigned defence, so you've lost nothing.

Your call as to whether you can hand hold the defendant a bit more closely.