National Parking Enforcement - County Court Claim

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs must be numbered, alternatively make #3 shorter and one paragraph.  There are paragraphs relating to signage already in the template.  Make sure that what you say does not repeat what is already there.  Since signage has been introduced as a legal/technical argument you can leave out the signage points in para 3 and put all that in the witness statement later in the process.  You need to set the scene for the judge by explaining that the PPC is claiming you "left site" if that is what happened, then you state there were no signs about leaving nor was there any clear demarcation between different parts of the site.  You leave the story about "not knowing the passenger was using different shops" for the WS.

milo_2020

Le_Kirk said:

All paragraphs must be numbered, alternatively make #3 shorter and one paragraph.  There are paragraphs relating to signage already in the template.  Make sure that what you say does not repeat what is already there.  Since signage has been introduced as a legal/technical argument you can leave out the signage points in para 3 and put all that in the witness statement later in the process.  You need to set the scene for the judge by explaining that the PPC is claiming you "left site" if that is what happened, then you state there were no signs about leaving nor was there any clear demarcation between different parts of the site.  You leave the story about "not knowing the passenger was using different shops" for the WS.

She did leave the site, but she herself didnt leave the car and was under 5 minutes in the spot, 4 minutes 32 seconds from the evidence sent in SARS.

I think ill remove all of the paragraphs in 3 if I dont reference the signs, a lot does repeat so i will remove that and post back here for feedback.

Is something such as the below suitable to replace all of P 3

The claimant is claiming non-patron for using the space without the defendant using the site. The defendant did not leave the car and the engine remained on in the same way that someone would use the space to observe any clearly visible signs. The signs were not clear from a parking space and are not clear in which parts of the site are under contract.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

additionally the defendant did not know that she was breaking said contract by this happening.

Add this:

The Defendant denies leaving the site and the car was only on site for 4 minutes 32 seconds, from the evidence supplied by the Claimant.  This short period of minutes suggests a regime of predatory ticketing, as this Claimant is notorious for in Norwich (evidence will be supplied with the Defendant's witness statement that this is the way this ex-clamper firm continues to carry out its business).  They did now allow a sufficient consideration period to allow a driver to read and learn of the terms by which that would later be bound

Redx

Check for typos too , when adding the above , change now to not , my predictive text does it all the time 😋😋

Once the changes and renumbering is done , post the latest version of those few paragraphs , for final checking

milo_2020

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

additionally the defendant did not know that she was breaking said contract by this happening.

Add this:

The Defendant denies leaving the site and the car was only on site for 4 minutes 32 seconds, from the evidence supplied by the Claimant.  This short period of minutes suggests a regime of predatory ticketing, as this Claimant is notorious for in Norwich (evidence will be supplied with the Defendant's witness statement that this is the way this ex-clamper firm continues to carry out its business).  They did now allow a sufficient consideration period to allow a driver to read and learn of the terms by which that would later be bound

is that using the new p3 above and removing the entirety of what i currently have? for example 

3.1. The claimant is claiming non-patron for using the space without the defendant using the site. The defendant did not leave the car and the engine remained on in the same way that someone would use the space to observe any clearly visible signs. The signs were not clear from a parking space and are not clear in which parts of the site are under contract.
3.2. The Defendant denies leaving the site and the car was only on site for 5 minutes and 9 seconds, from the evidence supplied by the Claimant.  This short period of minutes suggests a regime of predatory ticketing, as this Claimant is notorious for in Norwich (evidence will be supplied with the Defendant's witness statement that this is the way this ex-clamper firm continues to carry out its business).  They did not allow a sufficient consideration period to allow a driver to read and learn of the terms by which that would later be bound.

I just had to check the timing and I was using the incorrect times from a previous working out from the initial evidence they provided, the correct time is as above: Images of entering the car park space at timed at 17:08:21 and images of driving away are timed at 17:13:30, is this still worth putting in?

Coupon-mad

Change the wording to 'a mere 5 minutes' and drop the 'and 9 seconds' then.

milo_2020

I renamed all the numbers up one to add 4 to the paragraph, it current is like this. How are we looking? Thank you for your insights.

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

 

3.        The claimant is claiming non-patron for using the space without the defendant using the site. The defendant did not leave the car and the engine remained on in the same way that someone would use the space to observe any clearly visible signs. The signs were not clear from a parking space and are not clear in which parts of the site are under contract.

4.        The Defendant denies leaving the site and the car was only on site for a mere 5 minutes from the evidence supplied by the Claimant. This short period of minutes suggests a regime of predatory ticketing, as this Claimant is notorious for in Norwich (evidence will be supplied with the Defendant's witness statement that this is the way this ex-clamper firm continues to carry out its business). They did not allow a sufficient consideration period to allow a driver to read and learn of the terms by which that would later be bound.

Coupon-mad

3.        The Claimant's parking charge notice stated that the charge was for 'non-patron' which it is believed is an allegation that the Defendant left the site.  This is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof.  In fact, the Defendant did not leave the car and neither saw nor accepted any parking contract. and the engine remained on in the same way that someone would use the space to observe any clearly visible signs. The signs were not clear from a parking space and are not clear in which parts of the site are under contract.


Are you sure your engine was on? It's really weird to sit there with the engine on so is that true?  It isn't important so I wouldn't actually say it.

Redx

As above , the engine being on or off is of no consequence and not a factor in the case , the judge won't care , neither do we !!

Make the changes above and it's good to go

milo_2020

Yes engine was on as she pulled in to go to her next care patient so wouldn't have turned it off, thought it would add to the fact somehow, ok so I've made the changes and I have this:

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        The Claimant's parking charge notice stated that the charge was for 'non-patron' which it is believed is an allegation that the Defendant left the site. This is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. In fact, the Defendant did not leave the car and neither saw nor accepted any parking contract. The signs were not clear from a parking space and are not clear in which parts of the site are under contract.

4.        The Defendant denies leaving the site and the car was only on site for a mere 5 minutes from the evidence supplied by the Claimant. This short period of minutes suggests a regime of predatory ticketing, as this Claimant is notorious for in Norwich (evidence will be supplied with the Defendant's witness statement that this is the way this ex-clamper firm continues to carry out its business). They did not allow a sufficient consideration period to allow a driver to read and learn of the terms by which that would later be bound.