Defence Help

Redx

Ask the TOC , or pay the land registry a small fee for the information

Stop rushing , unless your deadline is today or tomorrow ?

Bear in mind that the defendant should not have ignored the ntk if they didn't want a Court claim , they are the architect of this current mess by not appealing a year ago !!

SayNoToPCN

Why do you use two sentences in 2 when one suffices?

The defendant admits to being the Keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the material time....

drivingmecrayzy

I have looked to confirm the land owner but I am struggling for confirmation. I cant seem to find it on the land registry due to the lack of address (name of land is not coming up although I can find shops in the vicinity). 

The land was up for auction a couple of years ago and it seems NCP of the tennant. 

Sorry if this is a stupid question but if this is the case does this defence still apply?

Redx

drivingmecrayzy said:

Umkomaas said:

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.

Are you sure about this?  In most cases you'd be correct, but NCP does own some car parks. Please check. 

The land is owned by Network Rail.

So does not look like Network rail own the land , meaning no bylaws either

You cannot have it both ways

Coupon-mad

OK so change the Defendant's defence to instead tell the Judge what the keeper knows about the car park and what happened to the driver that day.

drivingmecrayzy

Coupon-mad said:

OK so change the Defendant's defence to instead tell the Judge what the keeper knows about the car park and what happened to the driver that day.

Thank you. I have had a go at writing it again. This may be well off what is needed so apologies if so. Also I have left section 1 as is. Does thi still apply if NCP are tennants but do not own the land?

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:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied as the Defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident. 

3. The car park is located on London Road, Southport adjacent to Southport train station. London street is a main road in Southport town centre and the turn in to the car park is just after a major junction. Additionally the turn in to the car park takes two sharp ninety degree turns. Signage is not clear upon entry and the payment machines are hidden from the perspective of the car park. They are housed in a building structure which can only be seen when returning to the car park. On the day in question the driver saw the cameras in the car park and thought the car park was “pay on exit”. Once the driver returned to the car park and saw the machines the driver inputted the car registration expecting an amount to be displayed to pay. This was not the case and instead when money was inserted a pay and display ticket was issued.  

Le_Kirk

drivingmecrayzy said:

Coupon-mad said:

OK so change the Defendant's defence to instead tell the Judge what the keeper knows about the car park and what happened to the driver that day.

Thank you. I have had a go at writing it again. This may be well off what is needed so apologies if so. Also I have left section 1 as is. Does thi still apply if NCP are tenants but do not own the land?

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:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied as the Defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident. 

3. The car park is located on London Road, Southport adjacent to Southport train station. London street is a main road in Southport town centre and the turn in to the car park is just after a major junction. Additionally the turn in to the car park takes two sharp ninety degree turns. Signage is not clear upon entry and the payment machines are hidden from the perspective of the car park. They are housed in a building structure which can only be seen when returning to the car park. The driver has informed the defendant that on the day in question the driver he/she saw the cameras in the car park and thought the car park was “pay on exit”. Once the driver he/she returned to the car park and saw the machines the driver he/she  inputted the car registration expecting an amount to be displayed to pay. This was not the case and instead when money was inserted a pay and display ticket was issued.  

Which one was it?  Just to make it clear that the defendant was not the driver, suggested changes, feel free to ignore.

KeithP

3. The car park is located on London Road, Southport adjacent to Southport train station. London street is a main road in Southport town centre...

London Road or London Street?

drivingmecrayzy

Thank you I have made the following changes. Do you think I need to include any more information?

For example as it was believed it was a pay on exit car park the driver did not now how long they were in the car park for.

 A ticket was purchased but it was for 1 hour and the stay was for around 1 hour 20mins but also the ticket is not for the right time as it was purchased as the driver was leaving the car park and not as a pay and display ticket. 

Also can anyone advise if point 1 is still valid as they are tennants on the land and not owners or should I remove this point?

Thank you

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:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied as the Defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident. 

3. The car park is located on London Street, Southport adjacent to Southport train station. London Street is a main road in Southport town centre and the turn in to the car park is just after a major junction. Additionally the turn in to the car park takes two sharp ninety degree turns. Signage is not clear upon entry and it does not state “pay and display”. Additionally the payment machines are hidden from the perspective of the car park. They are housed in an enclosed structure which can only be seen when returning to the car park. The driver has informed the Defendant that on the day in question he saw the cameras in the car park and thought the car park was “pay on exit” due to the signage on entering the car park. Once he returned to the car park and saw the machines he inputted the car registration expecting an amount to be displayed to pay. This was not the case and instead when money was inserted a pay and display ticket was issued.  

Coupon-mad

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied for all the reasons stated below, including but not limited to the fact that as the Defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident.