Disputing a ticket - frustration of contract?

Vanadesse

Le_Kirk said:

Vanadesse said:

4.           The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of both that and any evidence they have to show clear unobstructed signage that is neither distracted by other random signage and that has clear parking terms that could have been viewed entering the site from a busy dual carriageway in extremely poor weather conditions in order to form a contract.

5.           The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof that and any evidence they have acted within the authority given to them by the landowner, including proof that their signage matches the free length of parking that is specified within the contract between the Claimant and the landowner.

Not sure what you meant by this but I don't understand it, maybe the judge won't!

Yes sorry that's poorly worded based on a previous one I looked at that I should have re-worded slightly, doing that now.

Johnersh

I'm not tracking back. What does the particulars say?

Why are we assuming that this is a USA typo and help make it good? The claimant could easily write in an address to avoid ambiguity/error. Is the pre-action correspondence correct? 

If the o/p has visited the site more than once/is local it is theoretically possible the claim could pertain to *any* of the 364 1/4 days that year.  So yes, the date matters. 

Vanadesse

Johnersh said:

I'm not tracking back. What does the particulars say?

Why are we assuming that this is a USA typo and help make it good? The claimant could easily write in an address to avoid ambiguity/error. Is the pre-action correspondence correct? 

If the o/p has visited the site more than once/is local it is theoretically possible the claim could pertain to *any* of the 364 1/4 days that year.  So yes, the date matters. 

Particulars state 03/08. The pre-action correspondence also stated this date. The original PCN and any other previous correspondence said 08/03. I did highlight it to DCB Legal when they took over pursuing this a few months ago and that they were chasing a PCN that didn't exist under that date but they didn't change it or take any notice. 

Coupon-mad

Oooh that's useful!  We've had this before.

Remove everything you have so far and make your point #2 say that the D denies that the vehicle was parked in breach on the date stated in the particulars.

Can anyone find any of the other cases where people have written a defence for a 'wrong date' case this Summer?  We had a couple and @Johnersh replied on them.

Redx

I would click on his username and read all his replies , finding them that way

I expected the OP to do it after I linked his name

Johnersh

Well if they failed to respond to a legit request for clarification it's not unreasonable inmho to defend the date of the claim put. 

It's also possible that there are two pcns (at least in theory). Different dates requiring different explanations. Again, one can only respond to the subject matter of the claim as put. 

Jenni_D

Is this a scenario where the defendant should also put an in the alternative defence, to cover off the other date? (i.e. they defend principally against the 3rd August date on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. In the alternative, if the Claimant has stated an incorrect date on their claim and meant the 8th March then yada yada yada).

Vanadesse

Redx said:

I would click on his username and read all his replies , finding them that way

I expected the OP to do it after I linked his name

I did read them, which is what I based my decision to keep in about the date and make it a bit more of a prominent point. 

Vanadesse

Jenni_D said:

Is this a scenario where the defendant should also put an in the alternative defence, to cover off the other date? (i.e. they defend principally against the 3rd August date on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. In the alternative, if the Claimant has stated an incorrect date on their claim and meant the 8th March then yada yada yada).

Yes this is basically what I’ve done to cover all bases, just in case. I’ll post my updated defence later as I’m on my phone atm. Thank you. 

Jenni_D

OK. To be clear, I'm saying that your first defence point is that the contravention did not occur, and the Claimant has no cause of action. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a PCN dated 3rd August was issued to the Defendant. Short and sweet, doesn't need to be embellished really.

Your subsequent defence points address whether the Claimant meant a PCN date of 8th March.

If you're basing it off @Johnersh's previous advice you won't go far wrong.