county claim form vehicle control services ltd

merits28

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 Defendant delayed in returning to their vehicle was caused by circumstances that were entirely unforeseen, unavoidable and exceptional. The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity.. The shop and Theatre were not in operation at that time so there couldn't have been any loss to the landowners while the defendant parked the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

3.The Defendant delayed in returning to their vehicle was caused by circumstances that were entirely unforeseen, unavoidable and exceptional. The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity.. The shop and Theatre were not in operation at that time so there couldn't have been any loss to the landowners while the defendant parked the vehicle.

Neither of the sentences I've crossed out, help your case at all.  Don't admit to being delayed and don't talk about 'no loss' (that has no legs at all). 

You have not told the Judge anything whatsoever about what sort of car park it is, why you were there and why you don't think you are liable/why you didn't knowingly enter into a contract.  You haven't even said if it was free or pay & display, nothing at all?  The facts are the facts!  Please give the background facts to the Judge.

merits28

Coupon-mad said:

3.The Defendant delayed in returning to their vehicle was caused by circumstances that were entirely unforeseen, unavoidable and exceptional. The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity.. The shop and Theatre were not in operation at that time so there couldn't have been any loss to the landowners while the defendant parked the vehicle.

Neither of the sentences I've crossed out, help your case at all.  Don't admit to being delayed and don't talk about 'no loss' (that has no legs at all). 

You have not told the Judge anything whatsoever about what sort of car park it is, why you were there and why you don't think you are liable/why you didn't knowingly enter into a contract.  You haven't even said if it was free or pay & display, nothing at all?  The facts are the facts!  Please give the background facts to the Judge.

thank you. i am naïve about all this, i will amend and repost but i am thinking maybe i should have just paid. 

Redx

merits28 said:

Coupon-mad said:

3.The Defendant delayed in returning to their vehicle was caused by circumstances that were entirely unforeseen, unavoidable and exceptional. The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity.. The shop and Theatre were not in operation at that time so there couldn't have been any loss to the landowners while the defendant parked the vehicle.

Neither of the sentences I've crossed out, help your case at all.  Don't admit to being delayed and don't talk about 'no loss' (that has no legs at all). 

You have not told the Judge anything whatsoever about what sort of car park it is, why you were there and why you don't think you are liable/why you didn't knowingly enter into a contract.  You haven't even said if it was free or pay & display, nothing at all?  The facts are the facts!  Please give the background facts to the Judge.

thank you. i am naïve about all this, i will amend and repost but i am thinking maybe i should have just paid. 

Foolish to pay now when even a loss in court should be less to pay in a few months time , plus you might win

merits28

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 signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity. Signage at the site makes an offer of parking for the period of one hour ,   In addition the yellow writing on a blue back ground says “Maximum stay one hour” cannot be read easily . The font above it which reads “St Marys Gate” is much clearer and readable.
The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to treat so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.
The Defendant have parked there to go to the shops at the moor markets.

merits28

hello everyone, please find  altered paragraphs #2 and #3, is this ok as advised by Coupon-mad I honestly done have any ideal what to add to this. 

Coupon-mad

3.  The Defendant have parked there at this car park to go to the shops at the moor markets and saw nothing to suggest that there were contractual terms for parking at the location.  The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity. Signage at the site makes an offer of parking for the period of one hour ,   In addition the yellow writing on a blue back ground says “Maximum stay one hour” cannot be read easily . The font above it which reads “St Marys Gate” is much clearer and readable.
The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to treat so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.

merits28

Thank you coupe-mad. I will amend and post accordingly. 

merits28

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 Defendant parked at this car park to go to the shops at the moor markets and saw nothing to suggest that there were contractual terms for parking at the location.  The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.  The signs at the front of the bay the Defendant parked  were obscured by a tree, there was Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions and Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity.

Coupon-mad

Did it look like a free car park?  Why are you not saying that?