UK Car Park Management Court Claim!!

Le_Kirk

Maybe you meant this: -

8. If this was a truly no parking zone I would expect to [strike]sign[/strike] see double yellow signs or hatched lines to communicate ‘no stopping’ on the road and as seen in Claimants’ photographs there are no signs or road markings.

Not sure you can claim it is prohibitive if you cannot/did not see it!

From the pictorial evidence in the Claimants’ photographs, you can see that the font type is incredibly small and would not be legible from the driver’s seat and is therefore prohibitive

Correct this error: -

10. Upon a recent visit to the site, it appears now there [strike]is[/strike] are double yellow lines on the road as well as cones which prevent parking, this can be seen in (Exhibit AC5)

.... and this one: -

11. Paragraph 12 – It is denied the Claimant would [strike]off[/strike] have mitigated this charge as it when appealed it was simply ignored and if evidence would have been required this would have been provided.

...... and this: -

19. Paragraph 33 – It is denied I was parked, I [strike]was[/strike] had simply stopped for less than 10 minutes and the parking operative had only observed me for 7 minutes before issuing the charge.

Kazaa

Thanks Le_kirk, seems like my grammar is not that great afterall.

Do you have any suggestion to what i can say in response to paragraph 14 of their WS?

Le_Kirk

I don't know what paragraph 14 says, the image is too small to read it.

Kazaa

If you click this link it should take you to dropbox, simply click on image and should get enlarged?

https://ibb.co/album/fsci6F

Kazaa

If your still having troubles do let me know and i will type it up.

Le_Kirk

That is the same link and it does not let one click on the individual pages to zoom in. Yes, just type the relevant paragraph from the letter.

KeithP

Le_Kirk, I found that clicking on an image twice did magnify the image quite considerably.

But that might be browser specific - I'm using Opera.

Kazaa

14. The defendant also appears to be alleging that he didnt park, which is clearly contrary to the photographic images. Further, my company would like to bring to the Court's attention the recent judgement of Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Nick idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward considered by his honour Judge Saffman (2018), whereby it was found "as regards to the reason for the stoppage and its duration, he argues that the breach occurs when the vehicle is brought to a standstill. It does not cease to be a breach simply because the car is stationary for a short period. It is the process of bringing the car to a standstill that creates the breach. In the absence of a provision which sets out the consequences for breach, such as there is here, then the duration of the breach maybe a factor in deciding what damages are payable but it does not alter the position that there has been a breach. I remind myself that in VCS ltd vs Crutchley the motorist for no more than 30 seconds and the observations by Lord Neuberger in Beavis."

Coupon-mad

Have they attached VCS v Ward or VCS v Crutchley as evidence? If not then it's all pointless for them to mention these cases!

If they have, please can we see VCS v Ward again (the transcript - Judge's decision) please, as a Dropbox link as I want to show it to more people - it's an abomination by a Judge who was led up he garden path by the VCS rep - an embarrassment to the court system IMHO.

Kazaa

No there is no cases attached, simply a few photographs.

Any advice with how i can respond to paragraph 14? Which i have typed above.

Apart from this, is that WS ok to send off?