Urgent help needed - County Court Claim - First Parking / DCB Legal

AlwaysTrying23

I had previously compiled paragraphs but have now consolidated into main points with the intention to elaborate within the witness statement. Are you saying I should incorporate points 3-7 into one singular paragraph and number?

Redx

I wouldn't reduce to one , but try to consolidate to fewer numbered paragraphs, meaning , what can be combined ?

Otherwise I believe we are there , or very close , but do not miss today's deadline , so email before 1530 today as a signed and dated pdf , after merging back into your template. A digital signature is sufficient for your pdf

I would combine 3 & 4

I would reverse 5 & 6 and combine

Then I would merge into the template , in place of 2 & 3 , then renumber from 3 onwards , add a digital signature , save as a pdf

AlwaysTrying23

Redx said:

Then I would merge into the template , in place of 2 & 3 , then renumber from 3 onwards , add a digital signature , save as a pdf

Thank you. I am now using an iPad Pro so can literally sign the template with the digital pen then save as a PDF. I will do this at the latest around midday in case I experience issues with ‘file too big’when sending. 

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.       This PCN relates to a staff car park at a university site. The driver was delivering computer cables to the onsite university contractors which took less than 10 minutes. Reference to ‘ Jopson V Home Guard Services, appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/09/2016’ where it was deemed unloading is not parking. 

4.       The car park has a manned barrier entry system via intercom and the car park attendant was aware of the drivers intentions. They raised the barrier and so permission to enter and unload was granted which the driver did and left when completed, so promissory estoppel. There were no loading / unloading bays nor signage stating this was prohibited.

5.       The use of different terminology, sizes and illegible text on the signage caused confusion. 

Thoughts?

Redx

Seems a lot better now , but if the vehicle had a valid permit I see no mention of it , so if it did have one , say so in 3 , such as

A valid permit was displayed in the vehicle

Good to know that you can sign it

AlwaysTrying23

@Redx I removed it as it was actually a written paper stating the driver was there delivering to company ‘X’ which was on the passengers drivers seat. The written paper is ‘normal’ protocol and has never previously been an issue. But I chose not to mention it as thought it didn’t bring anything to the table. 

Redx

Ok , then add it to your witness statement seeing as it's not a permit , but a hand written notice with no authority

AlwaysTrying23

Roger! 

Surely a judge just needs to look at the signs, sees the illegible terms and conditions and shouts dismissed, NEXT!! 

Umkomaas

AlwaysTrying23 said:

Roger! 

Surely a judge just needs to look at the signs, sees the illegible terms and conditions and shouts dismissed, NEXT!! 

Some of them do, but it's the Defence that's been dismissed. We never second-guess the Judge!

PS - I think you'll be OK, but don't quote me! 😄

AlwaysTrying23

Umkomaas said:

PS - I think you'll be OK, but don't quote me! 😄

Ha too late. After this I’ll be following this board closely. So very interesting. Plus these ‘corporate’ cowboys should be lined up for a public !!!!!! spanking. It’s a good thing I’m semi computer literate, this business is a mind field.  No wonder most people just pay up. 

Redx

My opinion is that permission to enter on business , Jopson and promissory estoppel will climb above ambiguous signage , plus the fact that the driver only stayed a short time whilst delivering goods , then departed promptly

I am not convinced it will rely on signage or even get to discuss signage 

It could be game over before sitting down , judgment to the defendant , claim dismissed

But don't quote me