HELP! Can you check my defence for me? (Steps after Claim Form?)

Coupon-mad

Those signs say 'no parking' so there is no offer of a space then..!  No contract, no consideration flowing between you and the parking firm. 

Was that GSV image from the right year? 

Where is this place, please share the GSV link itself so we can click on it and look round.

and the demand for payment of a legally unrecoverable sum to make it go away.  Such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of alleged consumer debt.

Isn't that repeated later in the template, I thought it was elsewhere in the one I wrote...?

I would defend as admitted driver, no fannying around.  Say it like it is.

benjward

Hi @Coupon-mad
Apparently I have to 'be around a little while longer' before I can post links. The address is Royal Quay, Liverpool L3 4EY

Was that GSV image from the right year? 
I have no idea how to tell. Is there a way to find out?

Isn't that repeated later in the template, I thought it was elsewhere in the one I wrote...?
It is. I just wanted to reiterate it. Should I remove it?

I would defend as admitted driver, no fannying around.  Say it like it is.
Thank you. So how should I amend section 17?

Redx

I wonder if that is the same place that one person fought back and beat VCS a few years ago, think her father was a lawyer or similar ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4135638/Desperate-Scousewives-s-Elissa-Corrigan-beats-firm-VCS.html

Ralph-y

See street-level imagery from the past

• Drag Pegman onto the map.
• Click Time .
• At the bottom, use the slider to go further back in time.
• To exit Street View, go to the top left and click Back .

Ralph

Coupon-mad

Isn't that repeated later in the template, I thought it was elsewhere in the one I wrote...?
It is. I just wanted to reiterate it. Should I remove it?

Yes.

I would defend as admitted driver, no fannying around.  Say it like it is.
Thank you. So how should I amend section 17?

Yes, but it depends what the GSV image shows you from 2016. 
Can you 'break' the http share link please and show us the actual place in 2016 from GSV, by changing the image date?

benjward

Thanks for all your help. I'll do some research and get back to you after dinner.

benjward

I would defend as admitted driver, no fannying around.  Say it like it is.
Thank you. So how should I amend section 17?

Yes, but it depends what the GSV image shows you from 2016. 
Can you 'break' the http share link please and show us the actual place in 2016 from GSV, by changing the image date?

Sure thing. Thanks @Coupon-mad   Here it is.
htt ps://www.goog le.com/maps/@53.3987372,-2.9871785,3a,37.5y,258.38h,82.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbBB2F9oQHRf_Oyrdso7o6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is from 2008 (The earliest the the Google Street view seems to go back to)
If I remember correctly we went in via the gates on the left and exited via the right hand gates. There don't seem to be many signs.

Coupon-mad

Forget 2008! 

You need to check the year of the parking event by clicking on the little time change thingy in the top left box:

July 2015 there is a white & blue 'P' entrance sign at the gate then:
https://goo.gl/maps/d3xMriAFg2bJUyjM7

August 2016 no entrance signs (that red sign on the fence on the left is not an entrance sign):
https://goo.gl/maps/Vcc7thCmMEXdUMLD7

May 2017 still no entrance signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/exBRQWToHLajWq2D6

benjward

Thanks @Coupon-mad. The ticket was issued 6/3/16, so I guess its the August 2016 image that would be relevant. 
So should I put the fact that there were no entrance signs in section 17? 

So how about this for section 17:
It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

It was mentioned that whilst the company didn't send me an NTK, the fact that I responded to the ticket on the dashboard can be considered a compliant NTK. So should I remove the line about the NTK?
 
Just another note on the ticket. It was handwritten, and the contravention code was given as 81-> 'parked in a restricted area of the car park.' I'm fairly sure that there was a fob or a keypad to get into the car park. And given that I had a valid permit displayed, it seems like 'parked in a restricted area of the car park' is not a contravention given those two facts - the gated entry and the valid permit on display.

benjward

nosferatu1001 said:

Look
You told them who drove. It seems really obvious based on what you said above, that you DID say who drove
So why would you bother saying youre not the only driver?  How does that help YOU in YOUR defence? 

Well
It looks more like an O that has faded than a 1 that has faded.
And
Where is bay 161? 

@nosferatu1001 Any thoughts? 
You seem to imply that if I admit to being the driver that all is lost.
I think I have a very simple case, given the lack of clear paint and signs, but obviously it doesn't matter what I think.
I'm keen to hear your thoughts on what should be done because your comments have confused me somewhat. Again my confusion doesn't really matter here, but
So what do you think should be done in this case?
Thank you again for all of your help