EDIT: WITNESS STATEMENT : Highview parking DCB legal

beamerguy

Hpralmo   you need to edit your post above as the critters read this forum.
Nothing about driver on here

Hpralmo

If it is helpful, this is what happened to me at the same place: https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/natalie-gould-left-trapped-at-riverside-retail-car-park-1368978

I think they did the wrong thing by paying instead of taking it to court though... I hope!

Hpralmo

Here is my updated defence: 

3.  The Defendant admits that they were in the car park for over 2.5 hours, however, the Defendant was not parked in a parking space for this duration. The Defendant attempted to leave the car park within the allotted time, but was prevented from doing so due to the number of cars trying to leave at the same time and the volume of slow moving traffic on the roundabout passing the exit of the car park. This amounts to frustration of contract. Terms of parking on the signs in the car park were not readable as the text was too small.

Redx

Hpralmo said:

 I would rather win based on the 1) added charges and 2) frustration of contract - does anyone think this is possible?

1 no

2 yes

Le_Kirk

I don't think I would "admit to being in the car park for 2.5 hours"!  What was wrong with the version I posted here 29 April at 10:37AM

D_P_Dance

It is possible but not all judges will tread that path. 

Coupon-mad

No, you are taking a silly risk by admitting to driving - completely unnecessary at defence stage - and if needed you could always expand on the facts in the later WS.

Defending as keeper is likely to see this case discontinued with NO HEARING.  Which is why we are telling you to do it the right way and to point out that the POC contain an untruth, that they can hold people liable as keeper.  They know they can't and yet the POC says so.  That's arguably abuse and a possible contempt of court.  Why would you not use any of that?

Hpralmo

Le_Kirk said:

I don't think I would "admit to being in the car park for 2.5 hours"!  What was wrong with the version I posted here 29 April at 10:37AM

My thought was it sounds a bit strange to say that the defendant is the keeper, then say that the defendant couldn't get out of the car park... I feel you can either go the route of saying who was driving and what happened, or the route of denying being the driver but then how would the defendant know what happened on the day?

Coupon-mad said:

No, you are taking a silly risk by admitting to driving - completely unnecessary at defence stage - and if needed you could always expand on the facts in the later WS.

Defending as keeper is likely to see this case discontinued with NO HEARING.  Which is why we are telling you to do it the right way and to point out that the POC contain an untruth, that they can hold people liable as keeper.  They know they can't and yet the POC says so.  That's arguably abuse and a possible contempt of court.  Why would you not use any of that?

I was going to include this as well...
I just think perhaps it is contradictory to include both arguments?
And if it were to go to court still then wouldn't I have to had to already say everything that I was going to use in court (i.e. frustration of contract)? 

Thanks for the help with this!

Hpralmo

Le_Kirk said:

I don't think I would "admit to being in the car park for 2.5 hours"!  What was wrong with the version I posted here 29 April at 10:37AM

I also thought of using this because their cameras can see that the car was in the car park, but their contract is about being parked rather than being in the car park.

Le_Kirk

What I was trying to point out is that there should be no "admission" of how long the car was in the car park (and I take your point that you were differentiating between being parked and in the car park) it is for the claimant to prove how long the car was there.  Using @Coupon-mad's point you could explain at witness statement stage that you spoke to the driver who told you about the traffic jam.