Claim Form - Help required with defence. .

Redx

As I said earlier , condense 2 , keeper and driver , get rid of the other bit and the /

KeithP

Do you really want to admit to being the driver?
Do you understand the keeper has more protection in law than the driver?

Le_Kirk

That defence STILL looks like a witness statement (WS), far too long and is a narrative.  Keep the defence short and to the point using legal/technical arguments and save the narrative (story) for the WS.

This is a clause of impossibility.

Maybe better as: -

This is void for a clause of impossibility.

because it make the contract null and void, look them up by asking Auntie Google and see which one fits better.

Wizwacks

I may have mentioned I am the registered keeper and driver to OPS when I made my initial appeal, I dont have a copy of what I sent (back in 2019) 
From the appeal reply they have mentioned the following 

"Your vehicle was not parked in

accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and you have not provided sufficient evidence to show

otherwise"

Nothing definitive there right ? 

Is the second paragraph ok? 

Le_Kirk

Wizwacks said:

I may have mentioned I am the registered keeper and driver to OPS when I made my initial appeal, I dont have a copy of what I sent (back in 2019) 
From the appeal reply they have mentioned the following 

"Your vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and you have not provided sufficient evidence to show otherwise"

Nothing definitive there right ? 

Is the second paragraph ok? 

If you mean paragraph #2, then no, it is illogical; what was wrong with adapting the one from the template defence: -

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper [and driver] of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

Leave this in if you were, take it out if you weren't.
If you mean your second paragraph beginning "The defendant cannot accurately............." then I refer you to my earlier posts here Today at 9:38AM and here Today at 3:42PM <<< LINKS

Coupon-mad

I would admit to driving as you know what happened and were driving! 

If your car was stationary in a bay for 11 minutes you will lose, like Norma.  But was the 11 mins including arrival photos...?  Calculate exactly how long they have you stationary in a bay.

If it’s under 10 mins then Norma’s case helps you because HHJ Simpkiss said that she would not have got a PCN if she had stopped there for less than 10 mins.

Have you done the Government consultation?  It closes at 11.45am tomorrow morning.  I think you should say what you think of the level of parking charges being so bloody high, plus that false debt recovery ‘costs’ that Simpkiss didn’t even look at, didn’t even understand what they were supposedly for, but he granted them anyway despite the costs not being quantified on the signs.

Wizwacks

Is this good enough? Appreciate any pointers. tried to keep it short and relevant, without making it looks like a witness statement, not sure how else I am supposed to write it. I went through the defence template. 

The Defendant can confirm he was the driver and registered keeper of said vehicle, but liability Is denied.

The defendant cannot recall the events from an unremarkable day almost two years ago other than that they entered the car park to collect a passenger. 
In the persuasive appeal court case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services Ltd, case number 9GF0A9E, Judge Harris QC stated that loading/unloading is not parking. Picking up a passenger is loading. The claimant's images show that the route taken by the defendant's car would have precluded the driver from seeing signs showing the terms and conditions.
The defendant received a Notice to Keeper a week after the alleged event, stating that the reason for issue of the charge was, "Vehicle Not Pre-authorised." This is a clause of impossibility. It is impossible for a motorist to know a vehicle needs to be pre-authorised before they have entered the site and had the opportunity to read the parking terms and conditions within the car park.

Redx

Needs paragraphs and numbers 

Plus if the client lived on site , surely they pre authorised stopping to pick them up as a passenger , so promissory estoppel as far as the driver was concerned , it was the only reason they were there !

Coupon-mad

You haven't answered my question about the images spanning 11 minutes and EXACTLY how long the car was stationary in a single bay. This will be won or lost on the timings when actually stopped in the bay.

Also, was it in one of the 6 P&D bays or one of the BRC bays at the top corner?

Wizwacks

From the 3 photographs they have sent me (the solicitors, have responded to my email. The parking company have not. I also sent them both a letter in the post, requesting all the info they have on me) The timings of the three photographs are

 

17.32  (It appears I am entering the car park, and in the middle of two bays)

 

17.43 (I am parked in one of the bays. There is a pay and display sign at the bottom of the bay, which the image has captured. Someone is also entering my car.)

 

17.47 (Driving away from the bay)

 

I cannot be certain how long I was in this fictitious car park, as it was back in late 2019, I can only go by their images. What I do no, is that I did not leave my car.