URGENT HELP NEEDED. Court Claim- defence due tomorrow

superdrpanda

hi all, 

just another question. I am tempted to remove this from the defence template.  13.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

as my case is - I am a blue badge holder - there were signs (wrong size font etc)  an we enter the car park - however no signs by the disabled bays and when we parked, we just assumed that its free as there were no signs to as normal tariff still applies etc. Only when we returned to the car park to take photos for PCN appeal -we only saw the signs above the ticket machine behind the parking space that says tariff applies with blue badge etc. 

Redx

superdrpanda said:

hi all, 

just another question. I am tempted to remove this from the defence template.  13.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

as my case is - I am a blue badge holder - there were signs (wrong size font etc)  an we enter the car park - however no signs by the disabled bays and when we parked, we just assumed that its free as there were no signs to as normal tariff still applies etc. Only when we returned to the car park to take photos for PCN appeal -we only saw the signs above the ticket machine behind the parking space that says tariff applies with blue badge etc. 

I wouldn't remove it , but instead I would add something to the beginning that , The defendant has subsequently visited the car park after learning about the PCN ( or PCNs ) and noticed......... blah blah , or something similarly worded , then incorporate the rest of 13

Also state that blue badge bays are required by law to be clearly signed from the driver's seat without exiting a vehicle but in this case no signs are present

superdrpanda

Redx said:

superdrpanda said:

hi all, 

just another question. I am tempted to remove this from the defence template.  13.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

as my case is - I am a blue badge holder - there were signs (wrong size font etc)  an we enter the car park - however no signs by the disabled bays and when we parked, we just assumed that its free as there were no signs to as normal tariff still applies etc. Only when we returned to the car park to take photos for PCN appeal -we only saw the signs above the ticket machine behind the parking space that says tariff applies with blue badge etc. 

I wouldn't remove it , but instead I would add something to the beginning that , The defendant has subsequently visited the car park after learning about the PCN ( or PCNs ) and noticed......... blah blah , or something similarly worded , then incorporate the rest of 13

Also state that blue badge bays are required by law to be clearly signed from the driver's seat without exiting a vehicle but in this case no signs are present

but wouldn't that contradict with my 3. 'The Defendant can confirm with certainty that she was not the driver on that day (12 March 2016) as she was on holiday overseas. The Claimant is put to strict proof.' 

as the particulars say the wrong date ?

Redx

Not if it's worded correctly

Word 13 such that the defendant has visited the site since learning about this matter , think , be creative , you gave background information above , so word it accordingly , since learning about the PCN , or since receiving an LBC , or since receiving a court claim

It's you job to carefully word it but still get the point across

I was giving you the idea , you have to reword it accordingly , we won't reword it for you , we give our opinions , and my opinion is reword that paragraph to suit your case and subsequent knowledge

superdrpanda

Redx said:

Not if it's worded correctly

Word 13 such that the defendant has visited the site since learning about this matter , think , be creative , you gave background information above , so word it accordingly , since learning about the PCN , or since receiving an LBC , or since receiving a court claim

It's you job to carefully word it but still get the point across

I was giving you the idea , you have to reword it accordingly , we won't reword it for you , we give our opinions , and my opinion is reword that paragraph to suit your case and subsequent knowledge

I am happy to reword- but just dont want to come across to be contradicting myself in my defence. The signs photographs mention were taken back in Dec 2016/Jan 2017- after receiving the PCN dated 3/12/2016. 

So do i admit that I have received PCN for 3rd December 2016 from that car park? but i thought it is not my duty to point out the error and I can only response to what is in the particulars of claim ie 12th march 2016. 

Sorry the date format thing is really confusing me. 

Redx

I gave you a link to that other thread where it was explained by Johnersh what to do , nobody here can give you better advice than he did to that other member , so none of us will do so , we agree with his opinion , so have no alternative opinions about 2 and 3 and the only thing we will do is redirect you to his wise words

My point is you reword 13 to suit , such that it does not contradict 2 & 3 , which is what you asked about today , plus I read your account today and gave an opinion on how YOU should reword it , it is your task to make it fit and such that it does not contradict 2 & 3

If you reword 13 and post your draft of 2 & 3 & 13 below , people will critique it accordingly , until you do so , we won't

superdrpanda

Redx said:

I gave you a link to that other thread where it was explained by Johnersh what to do , nobody here can give you better advice than he did to that other member , so none of us will do so , we agree with his opinion , so have no alternative opinions about 2 and 3 and the only thing we will do is redirect you to his wise words

My point is you reword 13 to suit , such that it does not contradict 2 & 3 , which is what you asked about today , plus I read your account today and gave an opinion on how YOU should reword it , it is your task to make it fit and such that it does not contradict 2 & 3

If you reword 13 and post your draft of 2 & 3 & 13 below , people will critique it accordingly , until you do so , we won't

Thanks for the clarification! 

Yes- I have read and understood the link and deleted my point 4 based on the advise. 

I have attached point 2,3  and 13 below. 

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

3.      The Defendant can confirm with certainty that she was not the driver on that day (12 March 2016) as she was on holiday overseas. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 

13.     The defendant has subsequently visited the car park after learning about the court claim. The claimant claims that the defendant breached the terms and conditions of the contract due to not clearly displaying a valid ticket/permit. However, no signs were to be found in front or surrounding the blue badge bays. The defendant is a blue badge holder and would always park only in the blue badge bays. Blue badge bays are required by law to be clearly signed from the driver’s seat without exiting a vehicle but in the case no signs are present. The defendant noticed there were small signs displayed at an angle to the entrance of the car park but the entry signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed. In addition, the entry signs were not visible from where the blue badge bays are. 

Redx

In THIS case no signs .. etc , not THE

Check for any other irregularities , plus check for any contradictory statements , although nothing obvious jumps out , so proof read it ( but otherwise it seems to fit your narrative and my understanding )

superdrpanda

Thanks for all the help so far. the defence has been submitted and an auto reply email has been received. I have also just received the SAR from DCB legal - which has provided nothing. So I guess I will just have keep chasing Excel parking services limited. 

 Dear Sirs 

Re: Our Client: Excel Parking Services Limited 

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

We write in response to your Subject Access Request (SAR). 

We can confirm that the personal data DCB Legal hold on file for you is as follows:- 

Name: xxxxxxx

Address: xxxxxxx

Email: xxxxxxxx

Telephone:xxxxxx

VRNxxxxxxx

DOB: xxxxxxx

DCB Legal hold a copy of the Letter of Claim issued in August 2021. Furthermore, DCB Legal hold copies of e-mail correspondence on file between yourself and DCB Legal, which you will already have copies of being the sender/recipient. 

This is the extent of the personal data held on file by DCB Legal. 

Your data was transferred to DCB Legal by the instructing case Client, Excel Parking Services Limited, who are the Data Controller in the matter. Your data is processed on the basis of “performance of a contract” and/or “legitimate interest”. 

We can confirm that DCB Legal have been instructed by the case Claimant to instigate legal proceedings regarding an unpaid Parking Charge Notice. 

This concludes your Subject Access Request to DCB Legal. 

superdrpanda

hi all, 

I have now received an SAR in the interim and also a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track form  and directions questionnaire pack? what does that mean?  

no other correspondence have been received in between.