County court defence

Le_Kirk

Your account is confusing.  Please read it again and work out what you are trying to say and rewrite it.  Remember that a judge has to read it and will have no knowledge of the car park, so you have to paint a picture in words.  Just as an example;
Paragraph 3 does not make sense.  Paragraph 5 does not make sense, it seems like you are trying to read the bushes.  Is paragraph 6 a repeat of paragraph 3?

pseek

Please modified it as I am not good in writing Please:

3.  The approach and entrance to the car park is on a one way road (Park street) with double yellow lines (exhibit xx-01). This is a busy road beside where stopping is impossible due to the double yellow lines and traffic (including many buses) not being able to pass. The only safe way to stop to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering. 

4. At the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible  (exhibit xx-02 and xx-03). The only viewable signage is the pay and display sign (exhibit xx-02) and there is no  ANPR sign (exhibit xx-01) which does not mention anything related to a risk of paying a penalty.  On the entrance sign, the only sign was ‘Pay & displayed’  see Exhibit xx-02 . The first term says “Pay & Display’. 

5. After finding the park the defendant came out from the car and tried to read terms and conditions which were too far to read and bushes were on the way to get close to read the terms & conditions. as seen in a photograph on (page 20) by claimant witness statement. Then, it can only read clearly ‘Paid & displayed’ signs from that distance and darkness.

6 The defendant observed the evidence used by the Claimant in witness statement on page (23 & 24) was not the defendant's car. Exhibit xx-03

7. The pay and display terms and conditions instructed me to read the signage displayed around the car park for full terms and conditions. These signs were heavily worn and torn, missing large amounts of vital information.. I tried my best to read all the terms by going around all the signs. The total number of words needed to be read to understand the full terms and conditions comes to 820. At the average reading speed of 200 words per minute, this takes a minimum of 4 minutes to just read the words, not counting walking back and forth around the car park, being directed to different places by the signs, and struggling to read small print. 

8. I then went to the pay and display machine to buy a ticket and look for terms & conditions on the machine which can not read these terms & conditions in the darkness. Exhibit XX-05.

9. The pay and display machine was confusing and I had to enter my registration number a few times before it was correct on the screen. I paid for 4 hours and displayed the ticket in my car. I then went into town. I returned to my car and left the car park, respecting the time that I entered the car park rather than when I paid for my ticket. Thus, the Claimant said in witness statement the defendant overstayed for 20 minutes which the Defendant was unaware of any perpetual overstay at Shaw passage.

10. The claimant did not provide the evidence of the vehicle entry & exit from the car park. The claimant used photographs of parked cars with different times which can be easily edited. The lack of evidence the claimant struck out.

11. In addition to highlighting the absence of entrance signage, Exhibit XX-04 shows a Shaw’scar park is permanently closed as shown on Google.

12. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit xx-09 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers. 

Le_Kirk

pseek said:

Please modified it as I am not good in writing Please:

3.  The approach and entrance to the car park is on a busy one way road (Park street) with double yellow lines (exhibit xx-01). This is a busy road beside where making stopping is impossible. due to the double yellow lines and traffic (including many buses) not being able to pass. The only safe way to stop to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering the car park. 

4. At the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible from the car (exhibit xx-02 and xx-03). The only viewable signage is the pay and display sign (exhibit xx-02) and there is no  ANPR sign (exhibit xx-01) which does not mention anything related to a risk of paying a penalty.  On the entrance sign, the only sign was ‘Pay & displayed’  see Exhibit xx-02 . The first term says “Pay & Display’. 

5. After finding the park the defendant came out from parking I exited the car and tried to read terms and conditions which were too far away to read and bushes were on in the way to get close to read the terms & conditions, as seen in a photograph on (page 20) by in claimant's witness statement. Even then, I can could only read clearly ‘Paid & displayed’ signs Pay & Display signs from that distance and in darkness.

6 The defendant observed the evidence used by the Claimant in witness statement on page (23 & 24) was not the defendant's car. Exhibit xx-03

7. The pay and display terms and conditions instructed me to read the signage displayed around the car park for full terms and conditions. These signs were heavily worn and torn, missing large amounts of vital information.. I tried my best to read all the terms by going around all the signs. The total number of words needed to be read to understand the full terms and conditions comes to 820. At the average reading speed of 200 words per minute, this takes a minimum of 4 minutes to just read the words, not counting walking back and forth around the car park, being directed to different places by the signs, and struggling to read small print. 

8. I then went to the pay and display machine to buy a ticket and look for terms & conditions on the machine which cannot be read these terms & conditions in the darkness. Exhibit XX-05.

9. The pay and display machine was confusing and I had to enter my registration number a few times before it was correct on the screen. I paid for 4 hours and displayed the ticket in my car. I then went into town. I returned to my car and left drove out of the car park, respecting the time that I entered the car park rather than when I paid for my ticket. Thus, the The Claimant said in the witness statement the defendant that I overstayed for 20 minutes which is denied the Defendant was unaware of any perpetual overstay at Shaw passage.

10. The claimant did not provide the evidence of the vehicle entry & exit from the car park. The claimant used photographs of parked cars with different times which can be easily edited. The lack of evidence the claimant struck out.

11. In addition to highlighting the absence of entrance signage, Exhibit XX-04 shows a Shaw’scar park is permanently closed as shown on Google.

12. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit xx-09 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers. 

I have edited it to read as I think you want it but please read through and correct it if the FACTS are wrong.  Some other points;
In your #4 you mention "there is no ANPR sign" but then you go on to say "which does not mention anything related to a risk of paying a penalty"  If there is no sign how can it say anything?  Your third sentence in paragraph 10 does not make sense, what are you trying to say here?  Not sure what you are trying to say with paragraph # 11

pseek

10. The claimant did not provide the evidence of the vehicle entry & exit from the car park. The claimant used photographs of parked cars with different times which can be easily edited. The lack of evidence the claimant struck out......

Trying to say claimant didn't provide vehicle entrance time picture and exit time picture which will show exact time car parked.

pseek

This is from claimant please look it how we can give response?

Defence

20. The case is simple. The Defendant purchased a ticket for parking on the Land which permitted the

Vehicle to remain parked on the Land until 22:54. However, the Vehicle remained parked on the

Land after the ticket had expired, thus incurring the Charge. There can be no reason, other than to

frustrate the matter, why the Defendant has submitted an 18 paragraph legally complex defence in

response to that.

21. The Defendant was afforded a 21-day period in which they could appeal, and I am instructed they

did not. The potential next step was clearly communicated to the Defendant in notices. It is

respectfully submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charge had been issued

incorrectly, they would have engaged with the appeals process further.

22. If there was any doubt regarding their liability, the Defendant has had ample time to challenge the

Charge or request evidence in support. Despite correspondence being sent to the Defendant by a debt

collection agency and a Letter of Claim being issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for

Debt Claims, no challenges have previously been raised.

23. The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the

substantive issues. It is submitted the this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my

Company’s time.

24. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the issues raised in the Defence by way of sub-headings as

follows (as the defence is quite repetitive, I will only deal with each point once, but for the avoidance

of doubt nothing within the defence is accepted unless I specifically state otherwise): -

The Contract

i. The Defendant alleges that there is no contract between them and my Company. It is my

Company’s position that there is and the details of which are set out above. Parking Eye -v-

Beavis established that this form of contract is perfectly workable;

3

Defendant’s Allegations

ii. The Defendant states they paid the sum of £3.50 which permitted them to park on the Land

for 4 hours. The ticket displayed in the Vehicle clearly stated the expiry time of 22:54, the

Defendant purchased the ticket at 18:54 and therefore, the Vehicle was permitted to park on

the Land for 4 hours;

iii. The Defendant acknowledges that the ticket purchased allowed them to park on the Land for

4 hours, however, alleges they were unaware of any overstay on the Land. The Vehicle was

recorded on the Land at 23:14, 20 minutes after the ticket had expired. It is respectfully

submitted that the Defendant was aware that they were permitted to park on the Land for 4

hours only;

Le_Kirk

I still don't understand the partial sentence "The lack of evidence the claimant struck out......"
Your defence is the response to the particulars of claim and further backed up by your witness statement.  The claimants always try to use the story/excuse that your defence is "a widely available template defence" and to which judges have commented "so what".  If you read the claimant's WS it is a widely available template WS!  The main thrust of your argument has to be around the fact that you paid an amount for 4 hours parking and depending upon when the timing started you either di or did not overstay.  Only you know the facts.

pseek

Help me please I am stuck

pseek

Le_Kirk said:

I still don't understand the partial sentence "The lack of evidence the claimant struck out......"
Your defence is the response to the particulars of claim and further backed up by your witness statement.  The claimants always try to use the story/excuse that your defence is "a widely available template defence" and to which judges have commented "so what".  If you read the claimant's WS it is a widely available template WS!  The main thrust of your argument has to be around the fact that you paid an amount for 4 hours parking and depending upon when the timing started you either di or did not overstay.  Only you know the facts.

"The lack of evidence the claimant struck out......" trying to say claimant didn't provide entrance time picture or either exit time picture which will show exact time I parked the car...I am not aware of overstayed and its in 2019 case which I don't remember the exact details. 

pseek

Now I amended as @Le_Kirk suggested:

3.  The approach and entrance to the car park is on a  busy one way road (Park street) with double yellow lines (exhibit xx-01) making stopping impossible.  The only safe way to stop to view the terms and conditions is by entering the car park.

4. At the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible from the car  (exhibit xx-02 and xx-03). The only viewable signage is the pay and display sign (exhibit xx-02) and there is no  ANPR sign (exhibit xx-01)..  On the entrance sign, the only sign was ‘Pay & displayed’  see Exhibit xx-02 .

5. After parking I exited from the car and tried to read terms and conditions which were too far away to read and bushes were in the way to get close to read the terms & conditions. as seen in a photograph on (page 20) in claimant’s witness statement. Even then, I could only read clearly ‘Pay & Display’ signs from that distance and  in darkness.

6 The defendant observed the evidence used by the Claimant in the witness statement on page (23 & 24) was not the defendant's car. Exhibit xx-03

7. The pay and display terms and conditions instructed me to read the signage displayed around the car park for full terms and conditions. These signs were heavily worn and torn, missing large amounts of vital information.. I tried my best to read all the terms by going around all the signs. The total number of words needed to be read to understand the full terms and conditions comes to 820. At the average reading speed of 200 words per minute, this takes a minimum of 4 minutes to just read the words, not counting walking back and forth around the car park, being directed to different places by the signs, and struggling to read small print. 

8. I then went to the pay and display machine to buy a ticket and look for terms & conditions on the machine which cannot be read  in the darkness. Exhibit XX-05.

9. The pay and display machine was confusing and I had to enter my registration number a few times before it was correct on the screen. I paid for 4 hours and displayed the ticket in my car. I then went into town. I returned to my car and drove out of the car park, respecting the time that I entered the car park rather than when I paid for my ticket. The Claimant said in the witness statement that I overstayed for 20 minutes while the Defendant was unaware of any perpetual overstay at the car park.

10. The claimant did not provide the key evidence of the vehicle entrance and exit time photographs which would help to find out how long I parked the car. The claimant used photographs of parked cars with different times which can be easily edited. 

pseek

In regards to this paragraph where to find Exhibit?   Please advise me:

12. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit xx-09 for comparison. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.