Please Help - have to submit a defence asap - very poor signage at non pay and display car park

RapidD

OK, here we go. Thanks once again for taking the time to read and help. I welcome your recommendations. I do wonder if relating the the very last point re: no loss of revenue, if I should be quoting a past case? i.e. no charges are made, therefore how can they have lost revenue? I'm not sue whether there is such a case. Anyway, I'll leave it to you experts! 
----------------

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant can also confirm to being the driver of said vehicle on the date of the alleged breach of contract.  

3.1 Background

The Defendant has been using the car park in question for approximately 9 years, in order to visit the formerly named '<name ommitted>' and more recently renamed '<name ommitted>' establishment as a place to conduct business in on a regular basis.

To the Defendant’s knowledge the car park has never been, and is not currently ‘pay and display’ or charges any fees for time spent parked. Furthermore, it did not previously have any timing restrictions in relation to a maximum allotted time to park. The Defendant cannot recall there being any pertinent signage or information, displaying the landowner’s intention to introduce such restrictions before their inception. On many occasions in the past, the Defendant has therefore parked for over 5 hours in said car park with no penalties.

3.2 Inadequate signage

On the day in question, the Defendant did not observe any signage pertaining to parking restrictions at any point during their stay at said car park. They were also not informed of such at the establishment where they visited.

After receiving the PCN, the Defendant revisited the car park to investigate what appropriate signage may have been present in relation to parking restrictions. The Defendant found:

-       No visible signage present at the entrance to the car park.

-       No visible signage between the location where the car was parked, to the entrance of the <name ommitted> establishment.

-       No visible signage either inside or outside of the <name ommitted> establishment’s entrance.

-       No visible signage when standing stationary outside the <name ommitted> establishment and walking back to where the car was parked, to a 360 degree angle.

-       Upon walking around the larger part of the car park that serves other establishments, some small signage featuring a light green back ground and white front, each of which was inadequate in terms of size and aesthetics to be visible from any further than a few yards away.

The Defendant has obtained visual evidence in both picture and video format to support the information provided in the above bullet points.

For these reasons the Defendant denies forming any contract with HX Management Ltd.

3.3 Loss of revenue

The Defendant spent the entire duration of their stay (minus exiting and re-entering the car in question) in the <name ommitted> establishment and has retained the original receipt for charges incurred during their stay.

As the car park does not charge any fees for up to 5 hours of parking, the Defendant does not believe any loss of revenue has been incurred, due to the duration of the visit being in an establishment on the retail park.

-------------------------

Thank you for reading.

 

Fruitcake

3.2 is already covered in the template defence.

3.3 went out with the Beavis case in 2015.

2 Would be better written as,

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  

Coupon-mad

Yep you need to bin the argument about 'no loss'.  Absolutely no chance with that argument since the Supreme Court had a brain fart in 2015 in the Beavis case!

You could add here:

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant can also confirm to being the driver of said vehicle on the date of the alleged breach of contract, which is also denied.  

RapidD

Fruitcake said:

3.2 is already covered in the template defence.

3.3 went out with the Beavis case in 2015.

2 Would be better written as,

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  

Wounded. 3.2 took me a while lol. 
I agree with you on #2 thanks.
So just to be clear, are you advising me to take 3.2 and 3.3 out entirely? 

RapidD

Coupon-mad said:

Yep you need to bin the argument about 'no loss'.  Absolutely no chance with that argument since the Supreme Court had a brain fart in 2015 in the Beavis case!

You could add here:

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant can also confirm to being the driver of said vehicle on the date of the alleged breach of contract, which is also denied.  

Thanks. I'll definitely remove 3.3.
Do you agree with removing 3.2 also? (If I've interpreted Fruitcake correctly).

Coupon-mad

Yes I agree - the template defence of course covers signage already as it is basic defence stuff in every case - remove that and save the detail about the signs for your WS and evidence stage.

RapidD

Alright, defence submission signed, sealed and delivered (metaphorically speaking....to the email address provided by Keith!). 
I know I'm far from done with this matter so I'll follow the guides and likely be back for your wealth of knowledge! I'll ensure I keep you posted with progress on my case. 
Thank you to all that have taken the time to help thus far and remaining patient with me. You do a great job of helping people stand up to these cowboy bullies. 
Regards. 

Le_Kirk

Keep checking on MCOL to see the progress of your case (up until it is allocated to a court) as you should be ale to see the defence received and a DQ issued.  Keep reading the NEWBIE sticky "Know what happens when" link to keep on top of everything.

Ralph-y

these are the threads that you need to  keep for research

direct link to court section in newbies thread
.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

and  
(this is the one you have just done)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

Ralph

RapidD

Hi again everyone,

WS/Evidence time!!

I have a video hearing via CVP, of which I have no experience of. 

I'm just beginning to put everything together. One question I have that I can't see on the FAQ'S (nor on the hearing letter) is regarding how best to file video evidence and how that will be played out in a video hearing. I read somewhere to use dvd-r and USB to send the video file, which is fine. Presumably that means I need to use good old Royal Mail to send physical copies of WS/Evidence (inc USB + DVD) and not to bother emailing anything through to the court/claimant? 

Presumably I can't email everything through except the video file and send that on it's own? 

As I have no experience of CVP, will the judge play the video evidence during the hearing? I'm not sure what to expect here. 

Thanks in advance. 

p.s. Should the witness statement have Times New Roman and line spacing = 1.5 like the defence?