Claim form received, First Parking LLP/DCB Legal (CASE 1)

beamerguy

nankai8 said:

Amount claimed - £270 (Approx,didn't want to specific)
Court Fee - £25
Legal representative's costs - £50.00
Total - £345

you have to be specific if you want to win ?
Court Fee - £25 >>> that's ok
Legal representative's costs - £50.00 >>>> that's ok.

FAKE ADD-ONS ARE NOT OK

nosferatu1001

Op - if you're not specific, we will not be able to give accurate advice. 

nankai8

Sorry I'm thinking to much into who could be reading and pinpointing my identity and the case.
Exact amounts are as follows..
Amount claimed - £273.40 
Court Fee - £25
Legal representative's costs - £50.00
Total - £348.40

nosferatu1001

So they've broken that initial sum down, as it clearly includes interest?
they cannot include interest calculated before they filed the claim. Betcha a tenner they've calc from day 0

nankai8

As these 2 tickets were from so long ago and don't have any of the letters, I have limited details of the time the tickets were issued and as I haven't received the SAR back yet I'm not sure if I have anything other to go on other than abuse of process. There are no lights near the signs making them hard to see at night and although highly possible it would have been dark at the time I am not certain so I can't use this. 

I'm keen to put the work in to make the third paragraph decent but don't think I have a relevant point to make. Should I just leave paragraph 3 on the template off the defense all together?

Thanks in advance for any advice 

Redx

There is no S in Defence

Abuse of process is no defence to the main P O C , it may assist for the additional spurious charges but they are more a case of double recovery and are a sideshow to the main event

Your defence points should address the main core issues , which is not abuse of process

Signage and lighting are key points because the signs form the consumer contract , so poor signs with inadequate lighting are essential defence points. It would be extremely foolish not to include them !!

What you think is not relevant , what you write is , what we think about your writings is key here , so write them

nankai8

Ok thanks. I have just been down there to jog my memory of the layout signs etc and took videos and pictures and have points to make about the position, font size and lighting of the signs. 

It also struck me that I remember receiving a ticket in the evening outside of the permit holders only time (8:00-16:00). I rang campus security who admitted the fault and was told that the security team member who issued the ticket was new and possibly wasn't aware of the rule. He told me that as it had already been issued I would have to appeal which stupidly I didnt. The problem is that I have no details or proof of this. 

Coupon-mad

I'm keen to put the work in to make the third paragraph decent but don't think I have a relevant point to make. 

Yes you do, and you wrote it yourself (I adapted it a bit):

As these two private parking charges were from so long ago, the Defendant does not have the Parking Charges Notices nor any of the letters and has limited details of the time the tickets were issued.  The Defendant has requested a SAR but was shown no evidence with the Letter before Claim and has not received any data or photos back yet.   The Defendant is aware that there are no lights near the signs making them hard to see at night and avers that no contract was communicated, or breached.

Then, add in something that tells the Judge what sort of car park it is (why do so many newbies not realise that basic factual info is needed, not something special).  What sort of car park is it and why would the driver of the car have been there, and what were the alleged contravention(s) or don't you remember? Say so!

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I'm keen to put the work in to make the third paragraph decent but don't think I have a relevant point to make. 

Yes you do, and you wrote it yourself (I adapted it a bit):

As these two private parking charges were from so long ago, the Defendant does not have the Parking Charges Notices nor any of the letters and has limited details of the time the tickets were issued.  The Defendant has requested a SAR but was shown no evidence with the Letter before Claim and has not received any data or photos back yet.   The Defendant is aware that there are no lights near the signs making them hard to see at night and avers that no contract was communicated, or breached.

Then, add in something that tells the Judge what sort of car park it is (why do so many newbies not realise that basic factual info is needed, not something special).  What sort of car park is it and why would the driver of the car have been there, and what were the alleged contravention(s) or don't you remember? Say so!

As well as what @Coupon-mad has stated, you also have what you wrote at 18 November at 9:13PM, although you will have to cut that down to make it a technical/legal point in the third person and then use it as part of your narrative when it comes to witness statement stage.  Knowing the sort of car park narrows down the issue for you.  It wasn't a P&D car park if it was in a campus ergo, was it a permit only car park?

nankai8

Thank you very much both for the help. Yes it was permit holders only. This is how it looks so far..

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

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

The defendant recalls seeing one signboard that displayed charges for parking which contained several colours and looked like an overly congested small print."  

3. As these two private parking charges were from so long ago, the Defendant does not have the Parking Charges Notices nor any of the letters and has limited details of the times the tickets were issued.  The Defendant has requested a SAR but was shown no evidence with the Letter before Claim and has not received any data or photos back yet.   The Defendant is aware  that there are no lights near the signs and that they contain severall different font colours and sizes, some of which incredibly small and avers that no contract was communicated, or breached.  The defendant has parked at 2 Kirby lodge car park previously as he works within the university campus but does not recall parking within the permit holders only hours of 8:00-16:00.   The defendant remembers a ticket being issued outside of the permit holders only hours and calling the security campus on the internal university telephone system as they are responsible for issuing tickets. They admitted that a fault had been made and it was due to the issuer of the ticket being a new team member.