Napier parking claim form received

Coupon-mad

You'd rather pay MORE than they could recover in court?  Even though they may eventually discontinue or (most likely) offer you a settlement of about £160 once you submit a defence?

conrod98

Actually it's best i write a defence, just a bit stressed about this, I'm still reading some threads of people with similar cases before i write a defence 

conrod98

Still doing some research, I've done a google street view of the car park, before entering the carpark it says pay before leaving but after that there are plenty of signs but in small writing it has terms written on it, I'm just abit confused on what to talk about in the defence about the use of signage, google street view doesn't let me see the car park properly 

KeithP

Shoaib121 said:

Still doing some research, I've done a google street view of the car park, before entering the carpark it says pay before leaving but after that there are plenty of signs but in small writing it has terms written on it, I'm just abit confused on what to talk about in the defence about the use of signage, google street view doesn't let me see the car park properly 

Have you looked at the Defence template you have been directed towards? Did you notice that there is already writing in it about poor signs? You don't need anything more about poor signs in your Defence.

Have another look at the Defence template and follow the suggestions there about how you customise it to your specific situation. There is very little work needed to produce a first class Defence.

conrod98

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and driver, The driver denies liability of this highly inflated invoice
 

3. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by BW Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Napier Parking Limited for a Total amount of £256.84. Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a £100 FCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle ******* nearly 3 years ago on 16/05/2018 at Willen lake north carpark in Milton Keynes.

The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is hard to read due to the text being too small, and the signage is
in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the
Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding
contract. 



I hope I'm getting somewhere 

KeithP

Last Wednesday I wrote:

Have you looked at the Defence template you have been directed towards? Did you notice that there is already writing in it about poor signs? You don't need anything more about poor signs in your Defence.

Coupon-mad

Willen Lake has an issue with who the landowner is, IIRC.

D_P_Dance

I don't even mind paying the original amount of the fine 

It is not a fine.  If you pay it be aware that an MP has said recntly in the HoC that it is possible that some of these companies have links with organised crime.  By paying you could be funding modern slavery and people smuggling.

Redx

Shoaib121 said:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and driver, The driver denies liability of this highly inflated invoice

2 needs altering

It should say ,. Registered keeper and driver , then delete the and Driver at the end , after question

The second sentence should say , The Defendant , not The driver

conrod98

Shall i do the AOS today