DCB Legal LoC

shaunguk

sorry new here will try that 

34LH89

@Coupon-mad @KeithP

Is there somewhere I can see other people's arguments? Also would it be an act of perjury to state that something was "as far as you remember"? In my case it has been three years, so the facts are a bit hazy, although historically what I am saying has always been correct.

Here's the latest defence if anyone has time to review:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

4.            The Defendant can provide evidence of having a valid membership for this particular PureGym, 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.

5.            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. The reason for the Defendant’s awareness of the need to register the vehicle’s registration details, was due to a sign within the gym stating that it was required to enter one’s registration to increase free parking from ninety minutes to one hundred and eighty, although no statement of costs for not doing so or otherwise overstaying the agreed parking time, were shown from memory.

6.            The Claimant has been made aware of the extension made available by Pure Gym, by email, on the 6th July 2021. The Claimant subsequently emailed the Defendant on the 24th August to ask for personal information, before seemingly accepting this piece of evidence on the 25th August, yet proceeding to request payment be made in respect of this invalid claim. The comment made by email was:

“There is no requirement to respond to this email unless you wish to provide further evidence in regard to this matter or make payment.”

Jenni_D

You can see other people's arguments by reading other court claim threads ... something I think you've already been advised to do.

I would put 4 at the end of 3 as it is related to the same point. (You need numbered paragraphs, not numbered sentences).

Coupon-mad

Read about ten threads or more...we read every new post every day and have replied to over ten court defence threads this afternoon alone.

34LH89

Jenni_D said:

You can see other people's arguments by reading other court claim threads ... something I think you've already been advised to do.

I would put 4 at the end of 3 as it is related to the same point. (You need numbered paragraphs, not numbered sentences).

I have to say this feels a bit of a rude reply - I think if you don't want to reply, please don't. I'd rather not be spoken to like an imbecile. 

Jenni_D

If you think that was rude then I can only apologise for your sensitive disposition. My reply was gentle compared to what the claimant has (and will) try to subject you to. (And my advice was factual ... you have previously been advised to read other court claim threads).

The second part of my reply was also to provide assistance - but as you seem to be unwilling to accept advice, I'll do a Dragon's Den and say "I'm Out". 🙄

34LH89

@KeithP
I've searched and can't seem to find any which add much value to my defence, unless I'm missing the point. I have read Angarad, Joker and another I can't think of the name of, which all state invalid PoFA wording and also relate to Highview, so how do I work out if mine is the same?

If the above can't be used, I have a witness who can confirm I visited the gym that day, a WhatsApp conversation (if that is any use) confirming plans to visit the gym and I can provide evidence of a valid gym membership. I think I even have a picture of the tiny sign with small font somewhere, although it would take some digging to locate.

Would it be enough to structure a defence around that, even though I can't say with certainty I entered my registration into the gym's computer system, as it has been three years.

Really appreciate any help - I know you are all very busy!

Coupon-mad

If yours is Highview it is non-POFA. They've never used that law.   That's why you could have won with one appeal email at the time, the fastest cancellation seen by Highview in recent years was two hours flat.

You can tell by comparing the NTK to para 9 of Schedule 4 and it is easy to spot but no need, we know.  It's non-POFA.  They can't hold a keeper liable unless the Judge thinks you were driving (has happened once).

However, if you think you probably input your VRM and that the signal to the cheap iPad 'VRM exempting' system may have been fluctuating, then this might be a better defence position and easier to argue in front of a Judge because an honest witness is what the court wants:

Would it be enough to structure a defence around that, even though I can't say with certainty I entered my registration into the gym's computer system, as it has been three years.

I'd be ignoring the POFA situation and saying in your defence that it is a long time ago but your normal visits to that site were with a friends where you were patrons of PureGym, which allows car parking to be extended to up to three hours, by inputting your registration into the system.  This is something the Defendant did every time and was entitled to 3 hours parking.  

The Defendant denies any breach of a relevant obligation or relevant contract.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and that their system was permanently working at all times that day, given that it is a mere keypad/iPad system reliant upon a signal and known to be prone to buffering and fluctuation.

34LH89

Thanks again C-M, will do.

Coupon-mad

But the person last month lost because the Judge decided he was driving, even though he thinks he wasn't. 

I'd prefer a position of putting the Claimant to prove their case.  It will be difficult for them to prove a negative.  How can they prove it wasn't buffering?  Very difficult for them, and you were entitled to three hours.  Case dismissed (hopefully).

What would be useful for you would be if your friend can provide a WS later, alongside your WS (comes later on) that says that lots of gym members got unfair PCNs and the system was prone to a fluctuating signal.  Even better of an email from the Gym will confirm that this WAS sometimes an issue... and you have MONTHS to get that!