Letter Before Action - Civil Enforcement Limited

go-on-then

You need to elaborate on the  'not enough signage ' point.  In what way ??

Coupon-mad

Add this as #4, of course:

That is the only reason the Defendant did not pay for parking, which they would have done had the terms been clear and obvious. They did not know there was any contract, due to a complete lack of conspicuous signs to alert returning drivers to the changes.  The Defendant had parked in the same exact car park multiple times prior to this and there was never a company exploiting the car park. The Defendant did not see any signs at all, nor pay and display machines, nor any arrows or 'Have you Paid and Displayed?' signage pointing to any machines. The person the Defendant had dinner with parked right next to this car and also did not see any signs. They also got a PCN and will be able to provide a corroborating witness statement about the lack of clear signs.

jackmall2121

go-on-then said:

You need to elaborate on the  'not enough signage ' point.  In what way ??

It's been a long time since it happened (July 2020) but at the time, we got out of our cars and headed to the restaurant a couple of yards away and did not see any signage indicating it was for permit holders only.
We got back to our cars around 8 pm and again didn't see any signs.
When we got the PCN, we found out that the shop that owned the car park had moved and sold the premises to another entity, which then allowed the car park to be exploited by CE.
They now have a machine inside the shop when you input your reg number to exclude you from getting a PCN. (I've just found this recently, while gathering evidence for this)

My friend was as shocked as I was when he got the parking fine, though I'm sure he paid it so he wouldn't have to deal with it later on.

I will expand on #3 tomorrow and update again for further advice.

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

No need, I've written it for you as para 4.

jackmall2121

Coupon-mad said:

No need, I've written it for you as para 4.

Thanks Coupon 

Should I omit this bit below, as from my understanding, when it's for Permit Holders only, they don't need to have display machines?

"The Defendant did not see any signs at all, nor pay and display machines, nor any arrows or 'Have you Paid and Displayed?' signage pointing to any machines." 

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Change it to suit.  You've told us far more than you have told the Judge in that draft!

You told us they have a keypad inside the premises but there were no conspicuous signs or arrows alerting drivers to this new change. Had there been, the Defendant and friend would have blah blah...  

jackmall2121

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

3. The defendant used the car park while having dinner at a nearby restaurant. There was not enough signage at the time of this alleged Parking Charge.

4. That is the only reason the Defendant did not pay for parking, which they would have done had the terms been clear and obvious. They did not know there was any contract, due to a complete lack of conspicuous signs to alert returning drivers to the changes.  The Defendant had parked in the same exact car park multiple times prior to this and there was never a company exploiting the car park. The Defendant did not see any signs at all, nor any arrows or signage pointing to any machines or terminals. The person the Defendant had dinner with parked right next to this car and also did not see any signs. They also got a PCN and will be able to provide a corroborating witness statement about the lack of clear signs. While gathering evidence, the Defendant discovered that there is a keypad inside the premises that own the car park, but at the time of this alleged PCN, there were no conspicuous signs or arrows alerting drivers to this new change. Had there been, the Defendant and friend would have paid for parking without hesitation.

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock.

6. With regard to template statements, the Defendant obse(...)

_______________

I will change the numbers of each paragraph to +1 as I added Para 4 to my defence.

Would this be acceptable to submit?

Thank you again for the help

Coupon-mad

Looks fine but 'unbold' it, of course!