Change from pay-on-exit to pay-on-entry.

Redx

no its not ready and coupon mad told you why its not ready yet , all those MY , ME , MYSELF & I references plus it needs to be concise , to the point , open the door for later, go through the door with your jackanory at the WS stage in several months time

yoiu dont have enough posts to allow editing , this is an anti spam measure by MSE and a well known restriction

nosferatu1001

Indeed. This isn't war and peace. You must be concise and to the point. 

Coupon-mad

You have ignored my advice I gave you on this very thread.  I posted it BEFORE you reposted that draft but you've not changed the writing style.

mallster

With due respect, I wanted to transfer my draft over to here and change my 2nd thread to "duplicate"  as suggested by KeithP ASAP.  So I copied and pasted my draft in the box as a reply on this thread without looking or realising there were recent replies (including yours). Therefore I had not seen your advice. I am not about to ignore your advice, I value your experience and appreciate that you give it. I have not yet re-written my draft as you suggested, or made it more concise as it is getting late and as you can see previously I made a typo just on a simple date.

mallster

New defence following advice, (filing date 18/1/21). Any suggestions gratefully received.

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 and Driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. The car park in question has been used regularly by the Defendant for more than 15 years. In that time the car park has been pay-on-exit with a ticket issued upon entry. On **/**/**** the defendent entered the car park, there was a sign stating "Our cameras record your number plate on entry and exit" explaining the disappearance of the entry ticket machine. The Defendant paid at the machine at the end of parking, but received a PCN as the car park had changed to pay-on-entry. There was, and still is inadequate signage informing the driver of a fundamental change in longstanding terms and conditions, therefore NCP have not complied with 18.10 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

mallster

I realise it is still not particularly concise. Should I drop the sentence about "disappearance of entry ticket machine" ?

Should I put in the sentence about BPA COP, and if so, should I actually quote the 4-5 lines of the 18.10

Redx

Alter 2 to say keeper and Driver , if you are defending as driver , establish this early on in black and white , no ambiguity

Open the door to any future arguments like the CoP , but save the meat until the WS stage

Concise is what this should be , the WS can ramble on

mallster

Thanks Redx, done.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me.

mallster

DQ received. Advice requested again please, I have looked but I can't find the answer, do I put my name in the "To be completed by, or on behalf of" box?

And also do I circle "1st" and "Defendant" as those are the case in my situation?
Thanks