Parking fine!!!

Redx

Grace periods are flexible , ruled by circumstances and delays , so tend to be mentioned as the word reasonable or a minimum of , blah blah , bespoke in each event , so it is possible that you did not overstay, so do not admit to it , assume that you left as soon as was possible and no overstay occurred , it's for them to prove their case

It is your job in your WS to show why the time taken met those criteria , your personal account as a witness who was present , unlike everyone else who were not

2 looks ok to me

3 seems ok but await more feedback , just in case changes or additions need making

Frustration of contract seems your main defence , not grace periods

nosferatu1001

Except a grace period, by definition, must reflect the circumstances at the time. 

Coupon-mad

Remove this, no acknowledging seeing signs (and the template already deals with unclear signs):

The defendant acknowledges seeing the small sign warning of parking charges upon entering the small private road leading up to the site. However, the main larger signage stipulating the terms and conditions was not visible until parking the vehicle and exiting to read. 

...and replace it with explaining how long the D was actually on site for - i.e. did the D then leave without accepting a parking contract within xx minutes after trying to make the machine work once the D got to the front of the queue, all of whom were finding the same thing happened - a faulty machine?  Or did you dump the car anyway and wander off on foot for hours?  Your version doesn't tell the Judge.

Ben255

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this, no acknowledging seeing signs (and the template already deals with unclear signs):

The defendant acknowledges seeing the small sign warning of parking charges upon entering the small private road leading up to the site. However, the main larger signage stipulating the terms and conditions was not visible until parking the vehicle and exiting to read. 

...and replace it with explaining how long the D was actually on site for - i.e. did the D then leave without accepting a parking contract within xx minutes after trying to make the machine work once the D got to the front of the queue, all of whom were finding the same thing happened - a faulty machine?  Or did you dump the car anyway and wander off on foot for hours?  Your version doesn't tell the Judge.

This is where I'm confused as to what info I need to put in my defence as opposed to witness statement later on.
I was there for 34 mins according to them, I genuinely waited to get to the machine as there was a big group gathered around it, once I realised it was out of service I qued at the cafe located in the carpark hoping to pay in their. I left once I realised I couldn't pay cash. I will add this info to paragraph 3 (in a more articulate way) and repost it shortly. 
Thank you

Ben255

Redx said:

Grace periods are flexible , ruled by circumstances and delays , so tend to be mentioned as the word reasonable or a minimum of , blah blah , bespoke in each event , so it is possible that you did not overstay, so do not admit to it , assume that you left as soon as was possible and no overstay occurred , it's for them to prove their case

It is your job in your WS to show why the time taken met those criteria , your personal account as a witness who was present , unlike everyone else who were not

2 looks ok to me

3 seems ok but await more feedback , just in case changes or additions need making

Frustration of contract seems your main defence , not grace periods

Thanks, I'll edit and repost tomorow

Coupon-mad

Ben255 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this, no acknowledging seeing signs (and the template already deals with unclear signs):

The defendant acknowledges seeing the small sign warning of parking charges upon entering the small private road leading up to the site. However, the main larger signage stipulating the terms and conditions was not visible until parking the vehicle and exiting to read. 

...and replace it with explaining how long the D was actually on site for - i.e. did the D then leave without accepting a parking contract within xx minutes after trying to make the machine work once the D got to the front of the queue, all of whom were finding the same thing happened - a faulty machine?  Or did you dump the car anyway and wander off on foot for hours?  Your version doesn't tell the Judge.

This is where I'm confused as to what info I need to put in my defence as opposed to witness statement later on.
I was there for 34 mins according to them, I genuinely waited to get to the machine as there was a big group gathered around it, once I realised it was out of service I qued at the cafe located in the carpark hoping to pay in their. I left once I realised I couldn't pay cash. I will add this info to paragraph 3 (in a more articulate way) and repost it shortly. 
Thank you

How is that confusing?  The difference between a defence and your WS is that the WS is in the first person 'I did this' and attaches evidence.

You just say the above instead of saying you saw signs that you clearly did not because you did NOT agree to pay £100!

Ben255

Coupon-mad said:

Ben255 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this, no acknowledging seeing signs (and the template already deals with unclear signs):

The defendant acknowledges seeing the small sign warning of parking charges upon entering the small private road leading up to the site. However, the main larger signage stipulating the terms and conditions was not visible until parking the vehicle and exiting to read. 

...and replace it with explaining how long the D was actually on site for - i.e. did the D then leave without accepting a parking contract within xx minutes after trying to make the machine work once the D got to the front of the queue, all of whom were finding the same thing happened - a faulty machine?  Or did you dump the car anyway and wander off on foot for hours?  Your version doesn't tell the Judge.

This is where I'm confused as to what info I need to put in my defence as opposed to witness statement later on.
I was there for 34 mins according to them, I genuinely waited to get to the machine as there was a big group gathered around it, once I realised it was out of service I qued at the cafe located in the carpark hoping to pay in their. I left once I realised I couldn't pay cash. I will add this info to paragraph 3 (in a more articulate way) and repost it shortly. 
Thank you

How is that confusing?  The difference between a defence and your WS is that the WS is in the first person 'I did this' and attaches evidence.

You just say the above instead of saying you saw signs that you clearly did not because you did NOT agree to pay £100!

My confusion, as i stated previously, is with how much detail and explanation to put in the defence before it becomes what will ultimately be my ws but with 'the defendant' replaced with 'I myself'. I'm just trying to understand it that's all.

What I have just wrote in the previous message is in the 'first person' and you say just put that in the defence, hence my confusion. 
Thanks for your input though, appreciate it. 

Le_Kirk

A defence is a series of legal/technical statements.  The WS is a narrative of what happened on the day and subsequently.  Provided you put in your defence that the defendant, along with everyone else in the car park on that date was prevented from paying promptly due to queues and/or machine failure (obviously put what it was) then you can expand upon that in the WS.  What you cannot do is introduce new defence points in your WS.  In this case you will have made the point and can then expand in the WS.

Redx

As above

The defence raises legal points to be discussed later on , so short bullet points to open the door

You go through the door and elaborate later at the WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment stage , to the nominated Court , just before the hearing

If there is no door , you cannot enter the TARDIS beyond

Coupon-mad

What I have just wrote in the previous message is in the 'first person' and you say just put that in the defence, hence my confusion. 

You simply put it in then change it to 'defence style' third person - easier than you think.