I've made a Subject Access Request, they've sent me some info but is it enough?

Will44

Thanks again everyone.

I've amended para 2 and replaced 'occupant' with 'defendant' in para 3.
And pared it down to lose paras 5,6 and 7.

Leaving us with:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not recalled who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day nearly eight months ago, it may have been the Defendant or the partner of the Defendant.

3. On the date in question – XXXX – the Defendant bought a ticket at the car park and went to the beach. The Defendant decided to stay longer on the beach, so went back to the car park before the first ticket expired and then bought a second ticket, which was also displayed in the vehicle.

4. Shortly afterwards the Defendant received a notice from the Claimant claiming a Parking Charge of £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days of the notice. The letter was unclear about why the Defendant was being charged other than providing the time the vehicle entered the car park and the time the vehicle departed the car park. It just said “Reason for issue: Session expired”. 

Will44

If this reaches the Court Hearing stage would it be possible for my partner to represent me? Or alternatively to assist me (a Mckenzie friend?).
If either of these are an option, do I need to arrange or notify anyone now?

Umkomaas

Will44 said:

If this reaches the Court Hearing stage would it be possible for my partner to represent me? Or alternatively to assist me (a Mckenzie friend?).
If either of these are an option, do I need to arrange or notify anyone now?

Yes they can. No need for advance notification. Just have a copy of the 'Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999' with you. 

Google 'Lay Representative' and 'McKenzie Friend' so you are clear on the kinds of assistance each can offer (and any limitations). 

Redx

As mentioned above , check the limitations , because the lay rep cannot be a witness or vice versa

Plus you as defendant must be present , it's not a substitution !!

That looks better now

Umkomaas

Redx said:

As mentioned above , check the limitations , because the lay rep cannot be a witness or vice versa

Plus you as defendant must be present , it's not a substitution !!

That looks better now

I totally agree. 

@Will44 - for the avoidance of any confusion from my post, reiterating @Redx's advice, the defendant will always have to be present, whether represented by a LR, or assisted by a MF. Just to clarify. 

Will44

Ok thanks for the lay rep info. I'll have a look into that.

I'll be submitting my defence no later than Monday morning, but if anyone has any further advice or suggestions, I'd be most grateful.

Coupon-mad

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not recalled who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day nearly eight months ago, it may have been the Defendant or the partner of the Defendant who actually parked the car.

3.   The Defendant does recall a visit with his partner,  around that time to the location in question, on the date in question – XXXX –  when they the Defendant bought a ticket at the car park and went to the beach. The Defendant They decided to stay longer on the beach, so went back to the car park before the first ticket expired and then bought a second ticket, which was also displayed in the vehicle.  The Defendant avers that the full time of parking in the space was paid for and wonders if the second top-up payment was missed by the Claimant's automated systems.  AOS member parking firms are required by their Code of Practice to carry out manual/human checks to look for such issues as 'near match' VRMs to allocate payments correctly - specifically to avoid parking charges being issued inappropriately to paying visitors - but none of this has ever been specified in any pre- or post-action communications, nor in the Particulars of Claim.  The Defendant is none the wiser as to why the Claimant believes their parking session expired.

Will44

Coupon-mad said:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not recalled who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day nearly eight months ago, it may have been the Defendant or the partner of the Defendant who actually parked the car.

3.   The Defendant does recall a visit with his partner,  around that time to the location in question, on the date in question – XXXX –  when they the Defendant bought a ticket at the car park and went to the beach. The Defendant They decided to stay longer on the beach, so went back to the car park before the first ticket expired and then bought a second ticket, which was also displayed in the vehicle.  The Defendant avers that the full time of parking in the space was paid for and wonders if the second top-up payment was missed by the Claimant's automated systems.  AOS member parking firms are required by their Code of Practice to carry out manual/human checks to look for such issues as 'near match' VRMs to allocate payments correctly - specifically to avoid parking charges being issued inappropriately to paying visitors - but none of this has ever been specified in any pre- or post-action communications, nor in the Particulars of Claim.  The Defendant is none the wiser as to why the Claimant believes their parking session expired.

Wow thanks Coupon-Mad, this looks really good. It is much appreciated, thank you.

Will44

I've adopted the above changes, and will be submitting this evening, unless anyone has anything further to add.

Thanks again everyone.

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not recalled who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day nearly eight months ago, it may have been the Defendant or the partner of the Defendant who actually parked the car.

3. The Defendant does recall a visit with his partner, around that time to the location in question, when they bought a ticket at the car park and went to the beach. They decided to stay longer on the beach, so went back to the car park before the first ticket expired and then bought a second ticket, which was also displayed in the vehicle. The Defendant avers that the full time of parking in the space was paid for and wonders if the second top-up payment was missed by the Claimant's automated systems.  AOS member parking firms are required by their Code of Practice to carry out manual/human checks to look for such issues as 'near match' VRMs to allocate payments correctly - specifically to avoid parking charges being issued inappropriately to paying visitors - but none of this has ever been specified in any pre- or post-action communications, nor in the Particulars of Claim.  The Defendant is none the wiser as to why the Claimant believes their parking session expired.