Stockwick V First Parking LLP (Court Defence Facts, Please Review?)

KeithP

Re: para 7... you raise an interesting point.

Perhaps you should take some pictures now showing how the permit could be seen if only the photographer had taken them at the right angle.

Unless you are saying "that due to the tinted windscreen (what's a windshield?) the permit could not be seen", in which case, I suggest you remove para 7 completely.

Coupon-mad

I don't think you are using the template defence, top of the forum. Point #1 of the template doesn't look like that.

Stockwick

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. It is admitted to First Parking LLP that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver for the Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXX but liability is denied.
   
   

2. It was not admitted to First Parking LLP that the Defendant was the driver during the Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXX. The Defendant remains unaware of this Parking Charge Notice, receiving no such notice either left physically on the vehicle or via post.
   
   

3. Both Parking Charge Notice took place at the Defendant’s place of employment XXXXXX where the Defendant was authorised and registered to park, holding and purchasing the appropriate permit for both 2019, and 2020.
   
   

4. Within the Claimants Particulars, it is stated in (4) that “The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not”. The Defendant finds this an act of fabrication, with no agreement entered.
   
   

5. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Furthermore, the Defendant suffers from Hyperopia, Astigmatism, and Colour Vision Deficiency, all of which, significantly affecting vision. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.
   
   

6. The Defendant considers the Claimant's photographic evidence as inconsistent and insufficient. All photographs provided have a ‘Time In’ and ‘Time Out’ stamp as taking place on 01/01/2020 at 00:00:00. Furthermore, it is apparent that a further time-stamp has been added on top of these images manually which is inconsistent in font, shape, and size. It is argued that this could have been added and amended at any time by the Claimant.
   
   

7. The Defendant’s vehicle at the time (2019 BMW Shadow Edition) features a large bezel around the circumference of the windshield. This results in a large proportion of the dashboard being hidden by the tint this produces. It is argued that the photographs taken do not prove, nor disprove that the parking permit may have been present under this tint. Therefore, the Defendant argues that this is insufficient evidence, unless alternative angles can be provided, clearly showing the dashboard behind this tint.

Hey Guys,
Many thanks for your replies.
How is this looking now?
I know Point (5) is featured further in the template, but I feel like this is a strong point due to my disabilities and would like to include it higher if that is okay?

Fruitcake

You have two points numbered 1.

Delete 4 as you have already been advised. 

Stockwick

Fruitcake said:

You have two points numbered 1.

Delete 4 as you have already been advised. 

Thanks for the response.
The numbers have been corrected.
Point (4) has been removed.
Any other feedback from anyone?

Coupon-mad

Within the Claimants Particulars, it is stated in (4) that “The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not”. The Defendant finds this an act of fabrication, with no agreement entered.

No.  Remove that non-point.

Will newbies please STOP making this up and jumping up and down about this something and nothing, standard phrase about the nature of a contract formed by signage.  Think about what it actually means, we are fed up with pointing out, this is not a thing.

Le_Kirk

Are there two different PCNs in play here?  If not your points 1 & 2 conflict with each other.

Stockwick

Le_Kirk said:

Are there two different PCNs in play here?  If not your points 1 & 2 conflict with each other.

Yep, two different PCN’s.

How is everything else guys? Is it good to go?

Le_Kirk

If you have edited as advised should be OK now.

Stockwick

Le_Kirk said:

If you have edited as advised should be OK now.

Thank you to everyone for your help so far.