Napier Parking

Le_Kirk

Is it relevant that you went to Tesco Extra in Beaufort Park?  Do you mean you drove out of that car park and sent somewhere else?  Going to Beaufort Park is not, in itself, a defence point.

Beebee88

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

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

 dilatated

No such word?

Dilapidated?

thanks thats what i meant dilapidated

Beebee88

Le_Kirk said:

Is it relevant that you went to Tesco Extra in Beaufort Park?  Do you mean you drove out of that car park and sent somewhere else?  Going to Beaufort Park is not, in itself, a defence point.

But that seemed relevant as im making the point that I tried to pay so that I could go to tesco.

Beebee88

As i wouldnt have been there otherwise.

Beebee88

Beebee88 said:

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.

Morning folks

Is there anything that i should add or take away?

Redx

You were told to add and driver to sentence 1 in number 2 , then delete the last sentence in 2

Keeper and driver of blah blah

Fix the typos too

Then repost the latest version

Beebee88

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

3. The defendant attempted to pay. The defendant regularly stopped by Beaufort Park after work at this period of time. On this day he recalls that the machine appeared to be in an especially dilapidated state. 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.

i added 'The defendant regularly stopped by Beaufort Park after work at this period of time'. because I'm not sure if on the day in question I actually tried to pay or if it was another day, its a cavaet in case they produce cctv or anything, and I'm caught out.

What do you think?

Redx

No CCTV will be produced

Le_Kirk

Was it perhaps a PDT that required an input of a VRM and you failed to do this or input an incorrect one?  Has the system changed recently?

Coupon-mad

.  After attempting and failing to retrieve the coins for several minutes (and with no indication that there were other machines or methods of payment) the defendant proceeded to Tesco extra located in Beaufort Park, so at all times was a genuine patron.  It was the Claimant's broken machine that frustrated any contract and not the fault of the Defendant; indeed this is just the sort of 'pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court noted would not have passed, in the ParkingEye v Beavis case in 2015.