Lbc template letter needed!!

Redx

please stop using a phone, it just cannot do what a laptop can do, a phone gives you a cut down version of the internet, this is not a job for a phone

now as you were advised a lot earlier in this thread, go to post #3 of this thread, click on the link , go to page 9 , post #169

there is a defence there that you were advised to use and to adapt in order to fit your own circumstances, please do so, bear in mind the 2 LINKS in post #27 above ^^^^^^^^ to other BARGEPOLE DEFENCES he has recently posted for other members here in 2018 (HE EVEN COMMENTED ON YOUR THREAD EARLIER TODAY so take heed of what he said, you wont be going to Northampton)

save your post above to be honed as your WS if it gets that far

GIVE THE FACTS OF THE CASE

ADDRESS THE POC BY THE CLAIMANT

etc

bargepole

Hel3013 wrote: »

Ok thanks for all the advise. This is the defence I’ve put together. I’ve tried to keep it simple for now. Could you help point out any mistakes much appreciated ...

Your version reads like a little timid mouse wrote it. I don't know where you got that wording from, but it's so far away from what is required that it's laughable. As others have said, you should STOP doing this on your phone, which is completely unsuitable for this type of work, and use a proper grown up computer or laptop.

I've redone the Defence for you (see below) as I knew I would have to. Please let us know when your next spoon-feeding and nappy change are due.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No.: XXXXXXXX

Between:

HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD

(Claimant)

-and-

YOUR NAME

(Defendant)

________
DEFENCE
________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to “Parking Charge(s)” incurred on [DATE]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state “The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle”, which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The facts are that on the material date, the Defendant's vehicle entered the car park, where the Defendant paid the correct parking tariff of £1 for one hour's parking. The Defendant entered her full and correct registration number [AB12CDE] into the pay and display machine, but for reasons unknown, the printed ticket only showed the first three digits.

4. The terms and conditions of parking, as stated on the Claimant's signage, state that the full and correct registration number must be entered. The Defendant did so, and left the car park before expiry of the paid time. The Defendant, therefore, fully complied with the terms and conditions of the contractual agreement created by the Claimant's signage, and denies that any terms were breached, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Any failure to print the full registration number on the ticket is entirely a matter for the Claimant, and the Defendant cannot be held liable for what is more likely than not to be a malfunction of the Claimant's pay and display machine.

6. In the alternative, if it is held that any breach of the terms of parking occurred (which is denied), the Defendant made all reasonable endeavours to comply, and any shortfall should be disregarded by the Court under the principle of de minimis non curat lex.

7. For the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such witness costs for attendance at trial as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Parkingfines

Bargepole you didn't have to do that at all. People should be get of thier own !!!!!! and do it themselves

Le_Kirk

Parkingfines wrote: »

Bargepole you didn't have to do that at all. People should be get of thier own !!!!!! and do it themselves

You are quite right and I hope the OP comes back and thanks Bargepole. It is people like Bargepole (and they know who they are) who don't have to do it that keeps this forum going. Hopefully, when OP has finished licking their wounds, they will realise everyone is trying to help (and sometimes criticism rather than critique is required) and they can get to the library (or someone else's PC) and adapt and use Bargepole's defence.

Hel3013

Thank you so much I know I’ve needed spoon fed but from everyone’s comments obviously not having a computer makes it hard to navigate on here I’m going to the library soon to read this and print it off!!

I was literally on the verge of just giving in after my attempt last night and that’s not in my nature so again thank you it is very much appreciated x

Hel3013

I will be!! I do fully respect and take constructive criticism well, this is obviously a matter and subject that I am struggling with that’s why I’m looking for help. Thanks to this siteand all the help on here I haven’t given up. I was about to though. I have actually spent hours for last few night on this reading and researching. Looks like using my phone has been my mistake and Yes it was all very wrong which is very frustrating but my own fault and I appreciated being told it was wrong even if my heart sunk at the time!!
I will be back in to update you all and hopefully wipe the floor with these cowboys and all this will have been worth it!!

bargepole

Hel3013 wrote: »

... obviously not having a computer makes it hard to navigate on here ...

Not just on here. Doing web browsing on mobile phones means that you don't get to see the full extent of the website, just a cut down mobile version with limited functionality.

Laptops are ridiculously cheap these days, as are printers which can scan documents. Everybody should have one.

Coupon-mad

bargepole, would you say in such a case that the OP doesn't need the 'safety net' defence point about not being the landowner/having no standing or authority?

I saw it was missing from another concise defence of yours as well and have been adding it back in...

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

bargepole, would you say in such a case that the OP doesn't need the 'safety net' defence point about not being the landowner/having no standing or authority?

I saw it was missing from another concise defence of yours as well and have been adding it back in...

… And I have been taking it out again.

It isn't a 'safety net', unless the OP can actually prove that they have no authority.

In this case, the issues are absolutely clear, and there is no need to muddy the waters with further arguments which are unlikely to succeed. The Judge will be mainly interested in the narrative of what happened, and only the most biased Judge would disagree with the pleadings in my suggested defence.

Parkingfines

bargepole wrote: »

Not just on here. Doing web browsing on mobile phones means that you don't get to see the full extent of the website, just a cut down mobile version with limited functionality.

Laptops are ridiculously cheap these days, as are printers which can scan documents. Everybody should have one.

Although Off Topic in the average family home web browsing is probably carried out mainly on tablets and phones these days and not laptops