Help! DEFENCE due

BaftyCrastard

So I've added in some extra detail. I'm not use to legal proceedings so I don't really know at what point things become irrelevant jibberish. At this point do I say who was driving?

17. The signage present at the time of any PCN being issued preceded the Claimant’s ownership or management of the land. While the Claimant stated the PCN was issued on private land owned or managed by said Claimant, the signage failed to clearly identify the Claimant as ‘the Creditor’ as instructed in the IPC code of practice which the Claimant adheres to (theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice). Therefore, at no point could the Defendant have knowingly, unknowingly or otherwise entered a contract with the Claimant. The Claimant may attempt to reference the new signage which was installed after the alleged event took place, which would be null and unbinding.

18. Due to a work emergency and phone line outage, the driver visited the Argos store located at The Market Shopping Centre on the morning of the alleged event at the request of their employer. This was to purchase emergency mobile phones for the business to continue to operate and was a highly stressful scenario. Given the time of day, traffic was very busy in and out of the car park and upon entry the signage was easily blocked by traffic due to its position on the corner of the car park and the private staff parking for the local stores. As this was the driver’s first time visiting the site, they took extra care to repeatedly look for parking attendants throughout the stay in case a mistake had been made. Unbeknown to the driver at the time, the use of ANPR cameras meant no attendants were present to monitor the pay and display parking and the lack of clear repeater signs to this point meant that the driver was able to enter, park and exit the site via the same route without any conditions being made “obvious”, again in contradiction to the IPC code of practice.

Thoughts? I think everything else is already included in the template really.

KeithP

BaftyCrastard said:

At this point do I say who was driving?

Why do you want to say who was driving?

Do you understand that the keeper has more protections in law than the driver?

Ok, in some cases it might be a good idea to identify the driver, but often it isn't.

which the Claimant adheres to (theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice)

Delete that bit. It's waffle and evidence comes later.

BaftyCrastard

KeithP said:

BaftyCrastard said:

At this point do I say who was driving?

Why do you want to say who was driving?

Do you understand that the keeper has more protections in law than the driver?

Ok, in some cases it might be a good idea to identify the driver, but often it isn't.

which the Claimant adheres to (theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice)

Delete that bit. It's waffle and evidence comes later.

Thanks I've taken that bit out and added "The Claimant is put to strict proof that Euro Car Parks (ECP) signs had been removed and Bank Park Management signs prominently placed on the site by September 2018." to the end of #17. Does that need to read "the Claimant's signs" or is Bank Park ok to use?

Redx

I would put

The claimant Bank parks signs

 , belt and braces

beamerguy

And what about ABUSE OF PROCESS ?

The claim form states that the total per ticket is £160 including damages ?? 
What damages do they refer to, there are no damages unless they think you were trespassing, which you were not ?
Can they prove their claim that signs at the time actually said DAMAGES ??

Such a claim is unreliable and a very feeble attempt to mislead you and the court. Since entering this game, DCBL have copied  another legal who also adds false amounts.  DCBL have clearly been watching what has been happening to the other legal who now get their fake claims thrown out of court because of fakery
Mostly the words used for the fake £60 were "debt recovery" and DCBL were using the same.  
Using the word DAMAGES is very serious for them as they need to provide evidence not heresay

ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Here is a letter DCBL sent out recently.   SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/5k/hgineo0acjnd.jpg

BaftyCrastard

beamerguy said:

And what about ABUSE OF PROCESS ?

The claim form states that the total per ticket is £160 including damages ?? 
What damages do they refer to, there are no damages unless they think you were trespassing, which you were not ?
Can they prove their claim that signs at the time actually said DAMAGES ??

Such a claim is unreliable and a very feeble attempt to mislead you and the court. Since entering this game, DCBL have copied  another legal who also adds false amounts.  DCBL have clearly been watching what has been happening to the other legal who now get their fake claims thrown out of court because of fakery
Mostly the words used for the fake £60 were "debt recovery" and DCBL were using the same.  
Using the word DAMAGES is very serious for them as they need to provide evidence not heresay

ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Here is a letter DCBL sent out recently.   SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/5k/hgineo0acjnd.jpg

As far as I'm aware, abuse of process is already in the defence template. I'm using the most recent version from the Newbie thread which is really well detailed and covers pretty much every point from existing threads.

BaftyCrastard

Here's a copy of my defence in full before sending

BaftyCrastard

So I got confirmation that my defence was received on 10/08/20. I'm just waiting on the DQ, how long does this usually take? I'm assuming they send me a paper copy or is it completed on MCOL? Thanks

Redx

There is no time limit , it's by letter , by post

Or download your own , fill it in and email it to the same email address as the defence

BaftyCrastard

Also rang the council regarding the planning permission for the signs to determine a date the new ones were installed. They only have permission for the previous signs (applied in 1992). They did mentioned the new signs might not need planning permission under the permitted development rules. If anyone knows more about planning for signage that would be great *holds breath*. Bank Park will still have to provide evidence that they were installed before the issue date though, which I know they won't be able to.