Link Parking and BWLegal advice please

Le_Kirk

You only have to show us the paragraphs that you have amended, we don't need to check the defence template in it's entirety as it was written by @Coupon-mad!  Don't copy and paste from Word as that (used to) will get your IP address banned - not sure if the new forum platform is the same.  Better to use WordPad.

mgmju411

Here are the paragraphs I added regarding the lack of signage as everything else is from the template.  

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. 2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

1. 3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the date referenced but liability is denied. 

1. 4. The points below are within the scope of the Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief. Whilst parts of this defence may be familiar to the Claimant and/or their legal representatives, it would not be right for a litigant-in-person to be criticised for using all relevant resources available.  It is noted in any case, that these Claimants use third party pre-written templates as standard.  This statement was prepared by the Defendant specifically for this matter and unlike the Claimant’s case, it deals properly and individually with the facts, the alleged contract, and the quantum.  The contents of this defence represent hours of research by the Defendant, in order to grasp some knowledge of alien concepts of law, codes of practice and procedures relating to the specific area of Parking Charge Notices (‘private PCNs’).   

1. 5. The Claimant states, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is not agreed.  Despite numerous written requests the Claimant failed to provide proof that the signage was legal.  They only provided one stock close up photo of a parking sign which did not display a location code.  The sign displayed in the photo did not exist at this site.  See exhibit????

1. 6. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any driver noticing them especially at night. There were no signs at the entrance or exit of this land

1. 9. The Claimant’s PCN was not attached to the windscreen despite the questionable photos produced by them following a SAR request. 

1. 10. Following the receipt of the ‘Notification to keeper’ (NTK) the Defendant, in preparation for the defence, searched the site and only found a small unlit sign that was not visible to a driver entering the site.  

1. 11. The only visible signage was obscured by another sign implying that parking was acceptable by stating that “parking was at the users own risk”.  This is shown in exhibit ??

1. 12. The positioning and lack of illumination meant the sign is hard to see even if a driver knows where to find it, particularly at night.

mgmju411

Photos to show no signs at the entrance and only one sign which was covered by another sign

Le_Kirk

You do not need to attach evidence to a defence, that come later at witness statement and evidence stage.  I would change your comment about signage from "legal" to "does not conform to the CoP".  Just make sure you are not duplicating what is already written in the template defence about signage.

Coupon-mad

I don't think that - the full version you showed earlier - is the template defence (the current one at the top of the forum)?

mgmju411

After reading through the Newbies and a few other posts I thought I used the new defence template which I changed slightly to add in the references to a complete lack of signage.  Can you post the link to the correct template and I will update the defence statement?

Umkomaas

mgmju411 said:

After reading through the Newbies and a few other posts I thought I used the new defence template which I changed slightly to add in the references to a complete lack of signage.  Can you post the link to the correct template and I will update the defence statement?

It's right under your nose at the top of the forum thread list. 

mgmju411

and that's the one I thought I used.  Comment please on the additional sections regarding no signage which I think is very important in this case.  No signs at the entry/exit of the land and only the one which was not easily visible and obscured by another sign implying it was OK to park.  Thanks in advance for your help

Coupon-mad

It can't be the current one because it doesn't have that introduction any more, about the defence being familiar to the Claimant.

Use the current version from the template defence thread.  And yes, your points about the signs are fine as long as you explain what sort of car park it is (pay & display?  permit holders, or what?) and why the PCN was issued and why the D believes no contract was breached.

mgmju411

HI Coupan-mad many thanks for your comments.  
I have updated my defence to use the 2020 template and I have added additional paragraphs in section 3 relating to no signage.

All comments appreciated.

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The Defendant believes that they were indeed the driver on the day in question and would have been parking on private land associated with a business that is regularly used by customers of the local restaurants when the business is closed. This has been the case for several years with no previous issues.   

The Defendant cannot understand what the alleged breach of contract was because there wasn’t a Parking Charge Notices left on the windscreen, despite the questionable photos supplied by the Claimant after a SAR request.

The defendant first heard about this parking charge after receiving the ‘Notification to Keeper’. (NTK).  Following the receipt of the ‘(NTK the Defendant, in preparation for the defence, searched the site and only found a small unlit sign that was not visible to a driver entering the site.  

The sign was obscured by another sign implying that parking was acceptable by stating that “The users of this car park do so at their own risk.  The management will not accept any liability for accidents, damage or loss incurred”. 

The Defendant tried to explain the situation to the Claimant, stating that the signs at this site didn’t conform to the IPC’s code of practice but to no avail.  No proof of signage has been  provided by the Claimant except for a stock photo of a parking sign which did not display a location code.  The sign displayed in the photo did not exist at this site.