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

benjward

Also state that in 2016 you believe the previous parking firm (whoever they were) had been removed and this is supported by 2016 Google Street View images that show that the 2015 'P' entrance sign had been removed.

@Coupon-madshould I add this into section 18 above?

nosferatu1001

"the mandatory requirements to establish 'driver liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law. "
THis is a complete nonsense. You cannot replace keeper with driver and assume it works. The above only makes sense when talking about pofa, and the requirements to establish KEEPER liability. Under contract law, the contracting party- the driver - is always liable for breach of contract. POFA simply allows them to shift this liability over toa  keeper. But, as weve told you a few times, as youre an admitted driver, and will be found as such on any balance of probabilities, anything to do with pofa - ANYTHING - is removed. It does not apply

SO was bay 158 next to your bay? Or was it bay 159? What about the other bays? If you dont know, say so. But guess why Im asking - its because youre claiming it was not reasonable toc onclude that the space was other than the space you were told to park in. The photos dont help you massively, as theyre in daylight and you can clearly see the rest of the "0" and that the portion that is still painted would never be a 1 - it is curved. So you then need to explain why you thought it was fine. What led you to believe, over and abiove the paint, that this was the right spot. 

Coupon-mad

Looks good but none of the evidence goes in yet (but you can mention it, as you have done!).

Remove this end bit because there is nothing about 'driver liability' as such.  Just keep the sentence shown:
Whilst it It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.   the mandatory requirements to establish 'driver liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

benjward

nosferatu1001 said:

"the mandatory requirements to establish 'driver liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law. "
THis is a complete nonsense. You cannot replace keeper with driver and assume it works. The above only makes sense when talking about pofa, and the requirements to establish KEEPER liability. Under contract law, the contracting party- the driver - is always liable for breach of contract. POFA simply allows them to shift this liability over toa  keeper. But, as weve told you a few times, as youre an admitted driver, and will be found as such on any balance of probabilities, anything to do with pofa - ANYTHING - is removed. It does not apply

Thanks for clarifying.

SO was bay 158 next to your bay? Or was it bay 159? What about the other bays? If you dont know, say so. But guess why Im asking - its because youre claiming it was not reasonable toc onclude that the space was other than the space you were told to park in. The photos dont help you massively, as theyre in daylight and you can clearly see the rest of the "0" and that the portion that is still painted would never be a 1 - it is curved. So you then need to explain why you thought it was fine. What led you to believe, over and abiove the paint, that this was the right spot. 

I think I have said before, I have no idea what the numbers were it was over 4 years ago.
If I had to guess I would say they were in scattered order, and not obviously sequential. 

I take your point though.

I disagree that you can clearly see the rest of the 0 in the photo. It looks much more like a 1 to me. So given that our interpretations obviously varies, isn't it the case that the markings should be maintained to a standard where interpretation is irrelevant, therefore I cannot be held liable? Is that reasonable?

You don't seem to think so though @no@nosferatu1001 ?

benjward

Thanks @Coupon-mad,
So as I understand it now, I should add 17. & 18. to the draft defence, send it in and follow the rest of the steps?

nosferatu1001

In the photo you can see the remainder of the 0. Its really, really obvious *in the photo*. You can also see that the sronger painted portion is curved and looks nothing like the actual "1" in the photo
I am making it tough on you, because you have to be clear and have considered this on all sides. 
You can argue whatever you like - wher is the case law supporting your side? You dont have any, so youre appealing on basis of "man on the clapham omnibus" rules.  this means you are asking the judge to make a finding of fact. That the space was ambiguously marked ENOUGH that the CRA2015 works in your favour - that in any doubts the most favourable interpretation is used
But that means youre going to be asked a lot of questions. like I have been . 

Coupon-mad

Don't forget to merge the Southampton PDF with your signed/dated defence PDF, before emailing it.

benjward

nosferatu1001 said:

In the photo you can see the remainder of the 0. Its really, really obvious *in the photo*. You can also see that the sronger painted portion is curved and looks nothing like the actual "1" in the photo
I am making it tough on you, because you have to be clear and have considered this on all sides. 
You can argue whatever you like - wher is the case law supporting your side? You dont have any, so youre appealing on basis of "man on the clapham omnibus" rules.  this means you are asking the judge to make a finding of fact. That the space was ambiguously marked ENOUGH that the CRA2015 works in your favour - that in any doubts the most favourable interpretation is used
But that means youre going to be asked a lot of questions. like I have been . 

Understood.
In your opinion, based on the arguments I have given, is it likely or unlikely to succeed on this point?
Is there anything else I should add or change in your opinion to make it stronger?

benjward

Coupon-mad said:

Don't forget to merge the Southampton PDF with your signed/dated defence PDF, before emailing it.

Sure thing. Thanks for the reminder.
And thanks once again for all of the help. You have been incredible.

Should I also add this bit:
Also state that in 2016 you believe the previous parking firm (whoever they were) had been removed and this is supported by 2016 Google Street View images that show that the 2015 'P' entrance sign had been removed.

Or is it irrelevant now?

Coupon-mad

It's very relevant, and the faded lines is something only a Judge can decide so mention that too.