Napier parking claim form received

conrod98

I hope this is better 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, The Defendant 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.

The Claimant has added a recovery cost of £60 to the invoice, i believe this charge added is a abuse of process.

KeithP

On 19th May 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.

And here is what I wrote in the early hours of this morning...

I promise I won't mention it again. 

Redx

the added £60 is double recovery and a possible abuse of process

keep working on it and follow the instructions on changing your username too

conrod98

KeithP said:

On 19th May 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.

And here is what I wrote in the early hours of this morning...

I promise I won't mention it again. 

Sorry for being dumb but I'm confused, was i meant to copy the highview thread about signage, this month has been stressful for me so I'm not thinking straight 

Redx

start with the defence template in the sticky thread by coupon mad , dated october 2020 , that is the one you are meant to copy, nothing else

however, it requires YOU to adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 to suit your own case, you have successfully done P2 above, leaving only P3 to be sorted out by you, after looking at say 12 other court claim threads using the same template

the template already questions signage and landowner authority, hence the comments by KeithP above

Redx

Shoaib121 said:

I hope this is better 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant 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 Claimant has added a recovery cost of £60 to the invoice, the defendant believes this added charge is double recovery and a possible abuse of process.

I have started that section off for you by copying the above post of yours and removing certain parts of it, now work on P3

conrod98

Redx said:

Shoaib121 said:

I hope this is better 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Defendant 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 Claimant has added a recovery cost of £60 to the invoice, the defendant believes this added charge is double recovery and a possible abuse of process.

I have started that section off for you by copying the above post of yours and removing certain parts of it, now work on P3

Thank you very much, I'll sort it out and sorry for asking these silly questions 

conrod98

Thanks for the help managed to change my username 

Le_Kirk

Shoaib121 said:

I hope this is better 
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant 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.
The Claimant has added a recovery cost of £60 to the invoice, i believe this charge added is a abuse of process.

Suggested changes as above.  Claiming it is an inflated invoice is not a defence point and anyway is covered in the standard defence template.  Signage is also covered in the standard defence.  Adding the £60 is not referred to now as "abuse of process" but "double recovery".  You now need to add your actual defence points.  What does the POC state?  You need to refute it; for example, if it states non-payment, your defence is that you did pay. If it was overstay, you state you did not overstay (only if true) or there was a compelling reason why, such as a mechanical breakdown or other emergency.  You must set the scene for the judge.

conrod98

Ah i forgot to pay before leaving the car park, normal car parks it's usually pay and Display with the willen lake car park is pay before you leave, which i must of totally forgot to pay. There was no windscreen FCN i only found out by receiving an letter in post.