DCB Legal LoC

Coupon-mad

You really should read other defence and claim threads, and you'd know it's perfectly normal for everyone to show their proposed paras 2 and 3.  Reading other threads around this week (any talking about defences) will give you so much more confidence that you are on the right track and are not alone.

34LH89

that's fine, I just wasn't sure - I think I read in the past something about not posting on public forums.. anyway, here goes:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is also admitted the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question, on the date of the alleged breach of contract.

 

3.         The Defendant visited the car park as part of a visit to the Pure Gym which is based at the retail park where the car park is located. Users of the Pure Gym are granted an additional ninety minutes of free parking by entering their registration within the computer system on site.

The Defendant can evidence having a valid membership for this particular Pure Gym, which was active at the time of the alleged breach of contract, and therefore the extension of parking was available on the date of the alleged breach of contract.

Furthermore, it should be noted that signage on site was of very poor quality, with writing very small and difficult to read, and with some signs in disrepair or otherwise vandalised.

Coupon-mad

Why is 2 not simply saying keeper and driver?  People do this as 2 sentences every day and we don't get why.

34LH89

@Coupon-mad I think it's because on the template it's split out into two, and with us being completely new to this, we follow the template to the letter.

Maybe the template needs amending?

Coupon-mad

Thanks.  Maybe it does this is driving me a bit bonkers every day.

I hate templates anyway...

Trouble is, there are cases where you don't want to say you were driving.  Hence why I separated it so people don't blindly copy.  But I still have no idea why it keeps being put as two sentences.  

Le_Kirk

34LH89 said:

@Le_Kirk @KeithP

Le_Kirk said:

Now you know your deadline for filing a defence thanks to @KeithP follow the links he posted to the template defence and, of course, you are free to show us your paragraphs 2 & 3 for critique.

Can I just check you mean post on this forum, rather than sending privately?

Yes, post on the forum; that way you get the maximum exposure to all the regulars.

D_P_Dance

Keith is right, you need to be familiar with every aspect of this, you do not play rugby before understanding the rules. 

Le_Kirk

Every paragraph requires a number.  If signage was so bad how did you know to input your VRM via the keypad inside the gym?  The judge might ask this.

4. The Defendant can provide evidence of having a valid membership

Maybe adjust as shown

Le_Kirk

That is a claim form and cannot be ignored.  But why have you posted on someone else's thread.  You need to start your own thread/discussion and give full details (not personal) about the car park etc.

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amounts for debt collection and damages. This amounts to double recover and some Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, a VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1