Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

_blueberry_

That makes sense.  My argument earlier in the WS is that I didnt know the store was closed until after I parked.  The opening hours on their site suggested they were open (I have evidenced this), as did google maps and you dont see the store front prior to parking.  Perhaps I could repeat this again in this section?

I have also added pictures in the ws, I could reference them again?

_blueberry_

On the interest rate charged - the alleged contravention occurred mid Jan 2021 (£100) - and the claim is for £177 + £35 court fees + £50 legal costs.

It appears the £100 has been inflated to £160, and then 8% added for 1.5 years (from the date of the event to the date of the court claim form in June 2022).  Is this a legitimate calculation or should I replace the 10.25% argument with something else?

Le_Kirk

The additional £60 has been referred to in the defence template.

Coupon-mad

And it's already covered in the WS example by baz417 - which repeats stuff from the template defence.

And the injection to the added £60 is always covered in more recent WS that you should look at:

e.g. the final version by @vincentvega27

which is newer than baz's one and includes the HHJ Murch appeal judgment as an exhibit.  See how that poster fitted it in.

Every paragraph needs a number and every photo/judgment exhibit needs a number (your initials then 1, 2, or 3, and so on).

Remove this, as 'premises' includes the store and the bit above it (about impossibility to comply with terms) is better :

"The sign also states that use of the parking facilities are for use while “on the premises only”. It would be impossible to stay on the premises at all times as I would have to leave the premises in order to enter the store and comply with this conflicting statement.  

In addition to the confusing and contradictory signage,"

_blueberry_

Thank you for those comments.

I will review the more recent WS and update the relevant points.  I note that on both the WS referenced, it discusses the "price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added" whereas this one is £60 - should I simply update this to reflect my £60 charge that has been added or stick to the original wording as this is about the routine practice?

I will also ensure the paragraphs are numbered.  I also need to reorder and clean up the exhibits.

Clearly I am doing a poor job of explaining the point around the premises.  There is no direct access from the parking spot to the store.  The parking spot is at the back of the building, and you would need to leave the premises, along the public side road, onto the main road and get to the front of the store (where the main entrance is).  The point I am trying to make is that in order to make it to the front of the store I would have to leave the premises.  The condition is impossible for anybody to comply with and therefore in my mind it makes no sense - and the condition appears to be a trap.

If you still believe this is irrelevant I can remove it - if not I certainly could use some assistance in wording it in a more legal manner please!

I have modified this section as follows:

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  The sign also states that use of the parking facilities are for use while “on the premises only”. This statement is impossible to comply with.  To visit the store, I had to leave the parking location, onto a public footpath and onto the main road where the entrance to the store is located, thereby all customers would have to leave the premises in order to comply with in order to enter the registration number into the kiosk inside the store.  I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. The use of clamping as a penalty for parking violations was made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The inclusion of such outdated language on a parking sign raises questions about the relevance and validity of the signage in the parking area.  This sign, which suggested that 'Others will be clamped,' directly contradicts current parking regulations and creates further confusion regarding the penalties associated with parking violations. It is reasonable to assume that the parking operators responsible for the signage failed to update their notices to reflect the changes in the law.  Given this discrepancy and the fact that clamping is no longer a legally permissible penalty, it further underscores the uncertainty surrounding the parking terms at the location in question. I believe this is another critical factor that should be considered by the court when evaluating the legitimacy of this case.

KeithP

I think you are making too much of the 'leaving the premises' point.

Has the parking company even suggested that this is an issue?

I would leave out all that stuff about having to walk off the site to reach the front door.

You have already seen the large sign on the end of the building...

The sign at what appears to be the rear entrance to Dreams has not changed since 2017 and it clearly says customers should enter the store via the front entrance...

...and the only way to reach the front entrance is to walk around the building.


[both those images are direct links to GoogleStreetView]

_blueberry_

Thanks for taking the time to gather all that!

The parking company has not really said much at all (I guess hence the POC issue!).

Happy to take it all out and focus on the signage.

_blueberry_

I have removed all the bits regarding the premises and updated the rest of the document to take on board all the helpful comments.  

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8sl6alyuqii2975feh4dz/WS.docx?rlkey=hqr3q7uelb2h4j8l0vy9jvkm5&dl=0

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

_blueberry_

Thank you for all of your help.  Any final comments before I submit tomorrow?

@Coupon-mad - I noticed on the post from @vincentvega27 that you advised to remove all of the pics of the parking.  I have included quite a few myself, although the signage is clearly quite poor.  Would you advise the same for my ws?

Could somebody please point me in the right direction on how to file the ws correctly?  I have read through the newbies post and searched the forum but couldn't find any specifics.  I understand I can email it but not clear which address?  Is this similar to the other documents I have submitted where it needs to be during working hours, etc?