DCBLegal/Excel Parking - Hearing Date June 2023

WoodyTheCowboy

The feedback on the defence is greatly appreciated. All above mentioned changes/additions have been made. 

Any further advice or should the defendant submit the defence? As per the newbies section of the forum via email of course. 

Coupon-mad

Show us the next draft including the phrase I told you to add.

WoodyTheCowboy

3. The defendant was visiting the car park in question to attend the nearby gym. The car park is located on top of the building, accessed by a ramp that is covered by a roof until you reach the top. The car park was advertised as a pay and display car park. The defendant entered the car park but found that the pay and display machines were unserviceable and covered by plastic bags, alternative means to pay via a smartphone app also did not work as it stated the zone was currently closed. After diligently trying to find a working payment method, the driver reasonably considered that the pay and display element was being updated or was not yet operational given all machines were covered and it was impossible to pay by phone either. Thus, the alleged contract is void for impossibility. The defendant attended the car park during the hours of darkness. The first sign for the car park terms is seen under the roof, whilst turning a corner, and is unlit. The next sign is located on the actual car park level and is also unlit. Both signs are unable to be seen during darkness.

Coupon-mad

I think you should add that this was a car park connected to the gym/business that the Defendant was attending, so this was not a case of unauthorised parking at a closed high street multi-storey, it was specifically understood to be the gym's car park and it was open and fairly full.

WoodyTheCowboy

Amendments made.

3. The Defendant was visiting the car park in question to attend the nearby gym. It was understood to the Defendant that the car park was connected to the gym that the Defendant was attending, so this was not a case of unauthorised parking at a closed high street multi-storey, it was specifically understood to be the gym's car park and it was open and fairly full with other vehicles. The car park was advertised as a pay and display car park. The Defendant entered the car park but found that the pay and display machines were unserviceable and covered by plastic bags, alternative means to pay via a smartphone app also did not work as it stated the zone was currently closed. After diligently trying to find a working payment method, the driver reasonably considered that the pay and display element was being updated or was not yet operational given all machines were covered and it was impossible to pay by phone either. Thus, the alleged contract is void for impossibility. The Defendant attended the car park during the hours of darkness. The car park is located on top of the building, accessed by a ramp that is covered by a roof until you reach the top. The first sign for the car park terms is seen under the roof, whilst turning a corner, and is unlit. The next sign is located on the actual car park level and is also unlit. Both signs were unable to be seen during darkness.

Coupon-mad

I'd make 'After diligently...' paragraph 4 as that's too long to read.

Re-number the template to suit.

Le_Kirk

3. The Defendant was visiting the car park in question to attend the nearby gym. It was understood to by the Defendant that the car park was connected to the gym that the Defendant ............

Just one error as well as advice posted by @Coupon-mad

WoodyTheCowboy

Coupon-mad said:

I'd make 'After diligently...' paragraph 4 as that's too long to read.

Re-number the template to suit.

Amended as advised and re-numbered.

Le_Kirk said:

3. The Defendant was visiting the car park in question to attend the nearby gym. It was understood to by the Defendant that the car park was connected to the gym that the Defendant ............

Just one error as well as advice posted by @Coupon-mad

Good spot! Thanks.

WoodyTheCowboy

3. The Defendant was visiting the car park in question to attend the nearby gym. It was understood by the Defendant that the car park was connected to the gym that the Defendant was attending, so this was not a case of unauthorised parking at a closed high street multi-storey, it was specifically understood to be the gym's car park and it was open and fairly full with other vehicles. The car park was advertised as a pay and display car park. The Defendant entered the car park but found that the pay and display machines were unserviceable and covered by plastic bags, alternative means to pay via a smartphone app also did not work as it stated the zone was currently closed.

4. After diligently trying to find a working payment method, the driver reasonably considered that the pay and display element was being updated or was not yet operational given all machines were covered and it was impossible to pay by phone either. Thus, the alleged contract is void for impossibility. The Defendant attended the car park during the hours of darkness. The car park is located on top of the building, accessed by a ramp that is covered by a roof until you reach the top. The first sign for the car park terms is seen under the roof, whilst turning a corner, and is unlit. The next sign is located on the actual car park level and is also unlit. Both signs were unable to be seen during darkness.

All recommended changes made. Any further suggestions before submission? The rest of the defence is as per the template. 

WoodyTheCowboy

Update.

A Notice of Hearing has been received with a provisional hearing date. However, this doesn't appear to have the same format as seen elsewhere on the forum. There is no date stated for submitting WS or similar.

The only dates stated are for the Claimant to pay the trial fee and that at least two days before the provisional date, the court will be in touch to confirm whether it is going ahead. That's it.

The WS will be prepared, to be submitted by 14 days before the provisional hearing date regardless. The court will be contacted to confirm this. Just seems odd that there is no mention of it at all.