Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

_blueberry_

Ah, I understand now - thank you.

Sounds like I may not have the response to my SAR prior to this date - would there be no way to push back this deadline considering I had received no LBC letter?

Mouse007

_blueberry_ said:

Sounds like I may not have the response to my SAR prior to this date - would there be no way to push back this deadline considering I had received no LBC letter?

No, do not miss the deadline for filing a defence. If you do the claimant can apply for judgment the very next morning.

Don't worry to much about the SAR, that will be more helpful at the Witness Statement stage. Your defence should be short and to the point and most of it is already written for yo.

Coupon-mad

No-one needs a SAR to write a defence.  This happens to everyone and you don't need more time.

Just use the Template Defence. Easy stage!  And please bookmark it, as you will soon need to refer back to the first 12 steps covered there, so you don't have to ask us about the next standard letter/form that arrives.

_blueberry_

I have made the below changes to the template defence, however, I am not sure if it is too / not detailed enough.  Is there anything you would add / remove / modify?

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

3. The Defendant had parked behind the store the which owns the parking bays to visit the store.  Due to covid-19 restrictions it transpired that the store was closed, however this was not clear on the approach to the store, as the store is located off a 40mph road and access to the parking is on the road preceding the store front.  The opening times had also not been updated on “google maps”.  Once it was apparent the store was closed, the Defendant briefly stayed within the area.  The Defendant insists that the store was unlikely to lose out as the premises were shut.  It was not clear that parking restrictions continued during the hours where the store were closed due to the lack of clearly visible signage.  The entrance to the parking was not marked and the small and illegible writing on the signage were unreadable from the street.  The approach is also on a downward slope toward the bays, making the view of the signs high above difficult to see for the Defendant.

I also had a question and wondered whether this is at relevant to the case / defence: I have just read through the sign and it state that the parking is for use of visitors and that visitors must enter their Vehicle Registration into the kiosk inside the store.  There are two issues with this – firstly that in order to get to the store front you would need to use the front entrance, and would need to go onto the public pathway (hence you cannot possibly follow the first term) and secondly, although we were a visitor to the store, we were unable to access the kiosk as the store was closed.

Coupon-mad

I think those are both good points too, so add them as a new para 4 and re-number the rest of the template. Then sign & date it (electronically is fine).

Job done, for this stage, as long as you email it on a weekday during working hours and make sure you get an acknowledgement straight back from the CCBC.

_blueberry_

Great - thank you.

Another point that might be relevant.  There are two types of signs (by the store and by EPS), which appear to alternate and are in line with each bay.  The store's sign does not have any conditions except stating that "others will be clamped" (I parked in a bay with this sign on it), however, the EPS one states that you will need to pay a "parking charge".

It is unclear which bays follow which signage and where the two contradict (i.e. one has a "parking charge" and the other a "clamp") which one should take precedence, or are you "assumed" to be agreeing to both?  Would need to look into this further in terms of the legal details but tempted to add something in so I can expand on it during W/S - what are your thoughts?

The signs are visible here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5143187,-0.2497918,3a,58.4y,179.4h,76.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s160RbQdS29eRFD7Z6jnEUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Umkomaas

Signage is probably the most important (and often winning) point in any private parking defence. The confusing (and possibly contradictory) number of signs at this site is important to your defence, so exploit it in your defence and, eventually, your Witness Statement. Use everything in your favour!

Mouse007

It might be worth mentioning the rather large and very clear sign visible on the end of the store as you turn off the main road which states "Don't lose sleep over parking - Free car park for Dreams customers" with a big arrow pointing left.

You were a customer, the fact they were closed does not change that.

Mouse007

_blueberry_ said:

3. The Defendant had parked behind the store the which owns the parking bays to visit the store.  Due to covid-19 restrictions it transpired that the store was closed, however this was not clear on the approach to the store, as the store is located off a 40mph road and access to the parking is on the road preceding the store front.  The opening times had also not been updated on “google maps”.  Once it was apparent the store was closed, the Defendant briefly stayed within the area.  The Defendant insists that the store was unlikely to lose out as the premises were shut.  It was not clear that parking restrictions continued during the hours where the store were closed due to the lack of clearly visible signage.  The entrance to the parking was not marked and the small and illegible writing on the signage were unreadable from the street.  The approach is also on a downward slope toward the bays, making the view of the signs high above difficult to see for the Defendant.

Small typo above to fix?

I am not sure I would say "the Defendant briefly stayed within the area"  It could be argued you ceased to be a customer once you found the store was closed. It would be better to remain silent on how long you were there.

 

Coupon-mad

Mouse007 said:

It might be worth mentioning the rather large and very clear sign visible on the end of the store as you turn off the main road which states "Don't lose sleep over parking - Free car park for Dreams customers" with a big arrow pointing left.

You were a customer, the fact they were closed does not change that.

Good spot! 

Another point that might be relevant.  There are two types of signs (by the store and by EPS), which appear to alternate and are in line with each bay.  The store's sign does not have any conditions except stating that "others will be clamped" (I parked in a bay with this sign on it), however, the EPS one states that you will need to pay a "parking charge".

It is unclear which bays follow which signage and where the two contradict (i.e. one has a "parking charge" and the other a "clamp") which one should take precedence, or are you "assumed" to be agreeing to both?  Would need to look into this further in terms of the legal details but tempted to add something in so I can expand on it during W/S - what are your thoughts?

Another good point!

You know private clamping was made illegal in 2012?!  You parked at a bay which was for customers and had an old an illegal clamping threat.  No contract was offered nor read/accepted.

All you'd passed at the entrance was the invitation to free parking, as per @Mouse007's point.