Napier Parking

Beebee88

5. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration R*8*8*L*X. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms of parking" by the driver. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct when parking at B*e*a*u*f*o*r*t Park, N*W9 on 12*/09*/19. 
 
6. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any contractual agreement to pay the Claimant's £1*1*1.12 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

excuse the stars I'm just being a little paranoid incase they google anything

Beebee88

I also sent off a SAR request on Wednesday, awaiting a reply, hopefully that gets them thinking twice.

KeithP

Well I'm going to write Beaufort Park NW9 in real text.

Whilst you are getting help from this forum, all the posts here form a massive knowledge base which will help others in future.

The next person looking for help with that car park may well find any conclusions reached on this thread useful.

Le_Kirk

You have written paragraph 5 & 6 rather than 2 & 3, as advised in the template.  Is there any good reason for that?  Also what you have written tells the judge nothing.  You don't have to be paranoid as the claimant will receive your defence after you have sent it to CCBC.

Redx

The SAR request will not make them think twice

Concentrate on your own defence and actions

Coupon-mad

We need to see your facts paragraphs, not things already in the template appeal (are you using the right one, top of the forum?).

Beebee88

Okay so its coming to squeeky bum time, but thankfully its wrapped up. Hopefully this isn't to bad? any advice wold be appreciated. Thanks

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant also was the driver of the vehicle. 

3. The defendant attempted to pay. The defendant saw what appeared to be a dilatated parking machine and made an attempt to make use of it. The defendant placed change into the machine, the defendant cannot recall the exact amount but recalls that it was the minimum amount accepted for the shortest stay. However, there was no response from the machine.  After attempting and failing to retrieve the coins for several minutes, the defendant proceeded to Tesco extra located in Beaufort park.

Beebee88

Le_Kirk said:

You have written paragraph 5 & 6 rather than 2 & 3, as advised in the template.  Is there any good reason for that?  Also what you have written tells the judge nothing.  You don't have to be paranoid as the claimant will receive your defence after you have sent it to CCBC.

Good point it was all jumbled up, I sorted that out. cheers

Coupon-mad

Why not just day 'keeper and driver', one sentence in #2?

 dilatated

No such word?

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Why not just day 'keeper and driver', one sentence in #2?

 dilatated

No such word?

Dilapidated?