Gladstones LBC

KeithP

The first line concerns me.
Does the Claimant already know the identity of the driver?

There's a lot of duplication in there.

That aside, it doesn't look anything like the Defences I have seen linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Look there again for the examples of concise Defences by Bargepole.

00460008

No I do think they know who the driver was, so will change that.

I will have a good look at the defences from post 2#

Woody510

Have you kept the ticket the machine printed?

Le_Kirk

Drop any defence that argues "genuine pre-estimate of loss" (GPEOL) as this old hat! Your main defence point is frustration of contract due to the failure of the equipment belong to the PPC. You put the PPC to strict proof that the equipment (PDT) was functioning correctly on the day. Use one of Bargepole's concise defences, add in the bit about the equipment failure and, if the PPC or solicitor is adding on fake £60 costs, search the forum for Abuse of Process and add in the defence points about cases having been struck out in courts on IOW and in Southampton.

00460008

Yes I still have the ticket woody.

00460008

Cheers Le Kirk. I will drip out all the other stuff and research the points you made.

Woody510

Good good that'll really help you in court as soon as the judge saw ours he dismissed the case involving hx and us.

00460008

Woody, do you have any links to the defence you used or took sections from?

Castle

You should also read U414830's thread and in particular the Judge's comments with regards to "de-minimis" highlighted by Umkomaas here:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=76140679&postcount=131

Woody510

I used the one in the sticky thread involving anpr and pdt machines and just adapted it to my case. I had the same problem as you machine took my money and couldn't put a reg in at all