barnet hospital - parkingeye court action

shal4

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

1 - 2 are not a legal deefnce.
3) is an explanation of why you didnnt comply with YOUR obligations under the PAP, so would be better served in the Witness Statement.

The defnce should be around a page of A4.

---

i agree about your views of 1 and 2
can such things not influence judge's opinion?
should i include or not?
i have noted your opinion on 3rd - will remove it from defence. thanks

Coupon-mad

Ah sorry, you already lost at POPLA and are at court stage. So if you have not shown us your defence yet, why not copy one from another ParkingEye defence Barnet thread?

Put the bold words into the forum search and you should find one to crib from.

nosferatu1001

POst 47 - no, they dont rely on consent to get your data anyway. Complete non starter
Dont even try

1 and 2 - ok you DO NOT get what a defence is about! It is a set of LEGAL ARGUMENTS> Is your opinion about a company a legal arguent? If you answer no, then why would it go in the defence? It probably should not go in your WS either, as you cannot *evidence* this, and a witness statement should be evidenced. Better to inclduie the comments by MPs, from Hansard...

shal4

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

POst 47 - no, they dont rely on consent to get your data anyway. Complete non starter
Dont even try

1 and 2 - ok you DO NOT get what a defence is about! It is a set of LEGAL ARGUMENTS> Is your opinion about a company a legal arguent? If you answer no, then why would it go in the defence? It probably should not go in your WS either, as you cannot *evidence* this, and a witness statement should be evidenced. Better to inclduie the comments by MPs, from Hansard...

thanks a lot...!!

shal4

is it worth adding following to defence:

Under English law, a contractual provision requiring a contract breaker to pay the other party a specified sum of money in the event of a breach of contract has traditionally been treated either as:
a. an enforceable requirement to pay liquidated damages if the amount concerned is regarded as a genuine pre-estimate of loss; or
b. an unenforceable penalty – when the amount concerned is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but in the nature of a deterrent against breach.

In this case Claimant cannot claim this money as a genuine pre-estimate of loss - as no parking space was vacant to be used and so was not used.
This Claimant cannot even claim this money as a penalty as breach of contract was not done by Defendent.
This claimant cannot even claim this money as a deterrent because Defendent did not use any parking service.

shal4

also, can i mention - as per advice in one of the above posts - below case in defence statement??

It's this court case transcript #CS018 that might help you.

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

nosferatu1001

No, dont use GPEOL. PE vs Beavis kileld that unless you know exactly what youre doing.

KeithP

shal4 wrote: »

is it worth adding following to defence:

Under English law, a contractual provision requiring a contract breaker to pay the other party a specified sum of money in the event of a breach of contract has traditionally been treated either as:
a. an enforceable requirement to pay liquidated damages if the amount concerned is regarded as a genuine pre-estimate of loss; or
b. an unenforceable penalty !!!8211; when the amount concerned is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but in the nature of a deterrent against breach.

In this case Claimant cannot claim this money as a genuine pre-estimate of loss - as no parking space was vacant to be used and so was not used.
This Claimant cannot even claim this money as a penalty as breach of contract was not done by Defendent.
This claimant cannot even claim this money as a deterrent because Defendent did not use any parking service.

Surely the suggestion is that the driver entered into a contract to pay a large sum of money to the PPC if the driver did not park in accordance with the car park rules.

In other words, it was a contractual term that the driver agreed to by parking, that the driver would pay such large sum for the 'privilege' of parking in such a manner.

As such, there can be no concept of 'a genuine pre-estimate of loss' or 'an enforceable requirement to pay liquidated damages' since the driver had freely agreed to the contract terms.


I have only written this to demonstrate why you should not waste effort trying to fit that stuff into you Defence - not because I agree with their methods of working.

shal4

KeithP wrote: »

Surely the suggestion is that the driver entered into a contract to pay a large sum of money to the PPC if the driver did not park in accordance with the car park rules.

In other words, it was a contractual term that the driver agreed to by parking, that the driver would pay such large sum for the 'privilege' of parking in such a manner.

As such, there can be no concept of 'a genuine pre-estimate of loss' or 'an enforceable requirement to pay liquidated damages' since the driver had freely agreed to the contract terms.


I have only written this to demonstrate why you should not waste effort trying to fit that stuff into you Defence - not because I agree with their methods of working.

ok i will remove it. thanks...

i was only hoping that this will add weight to defence because all this can apply if contract was formed. but waiting is not parking so no contract scenario.

shal4

one more thing i do not understand:

in case of 'ParkingEye v Beavis', driver lost the case, so in my opinion we should not mention this case. how can this case help any driver?