Claim Form Received at old Address

KeithP

harmy69 said:

They also mention Gladstone Solicitors but the Court Claim Form states DCB Legal Ltd. 

Whilst you may well have room for complaint, I don't think you can complain about that particular point.

They do use the word 'may' in there...

Coupon-mad

Sounds as expected.  You don't get the signs as part of a SAR because they don't include your personal data.

You will see their signage pics with their WS, at that later stage,

harmy69

Cheers for that guys. Will be amending the defence tonight. It’s odd that the photos they have provided are extremely well
lit but the photo I took shows it’s not they greatly lit at all. 

Their pic 

My pic 

Coupon-mad

Not seeing any signs or a yellow line in your pics!

harmy69

Coupon-mad said:

Not seeing any signs or a yellow line in your pics!

Yes exactly. It seems they have photoshopped the lines in. 

Here is my amended defence. Still seems a little too much info but not entirely sure how to make it even smaller without excluding details. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. At around (time and date) of November 2020 the defendant drove up Allison Street in the direction of the B4100 and parked their vehicle in the “Indoor Car Park”.

4. There were only two signs seen by the defendant on the approach to the car park plus a “Please Pay Here” sign next to the payment machine. 

5. No signs displayed any terms and conditions on them. 

6. No sign had any contact information for the defendant to use either. 

7. The defendant noticed that the only signs on the entrance wall were on the passenger side and these stated “PAY AT MACHINE ON OUTSIDE CAR PARK” and above that there was a sign stating “CCTV IN OPERATION ON THESE PREMISES”.

8. The defendant recalls that the car park was poorly lit and mostly amongst shadows.

9. The defendant parked his car next to a space with metal pillars where another car could not be parked. 

10. The defendant noticed that parking bays were not clearly marked and some were not visible at all.

11. The defendant notes there were no signs next to the payment machine regarding terms and conditions but paid for 3 hours of parking and displayed this ticket in the windscreen of his car. 

12. Upon arriving back to the car after some hours, the defendant realised he had a PCN attached to the windscreen of his car. 

13. The following day the defendant emailed his appeal as he had already paid the hourly parking charge. 

14. A reply was received the following day dismissing the appeal and alleging that the charge was for “not parking WHOLLY within a marked bay” and that not complying  “with the terms and conditions stated on signage within the area...” 

15. The defendant disagrees with all these points as there was no visible or obvious signage regarding any terms and conditions within the area in which he parked his car. 

16. The claim form states that the defendent admitted to the alleged contravention and agreed to pay. At no point did the defendant admit liability or agree to pay any sum in regards to that alleged contravention.

17. No further correspondence was received at the address provided by the defendant up until the Court Claim Form.

18. The Claim Form states the “vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). The defendant disagrees that any contract was formed due to the fact that there had been absolutely no clear and obvious signage visible relating to any Terms by the Claimant as he entered the car park and when he paid at the payment machine.

19. The defendant disagrees with the Claimant's excessive costs and damages relating to parking in the claimant's car park that day as no contract was ever formed due to no clear and obvious signage that could clearly be seen. 

Coupon-mad

I am not sure why you have deviated away from the template defence, or is the rest underneath your additions?

Don't use the word 'disagrees'.  Say 'denies'.

harmy69

Coupon-mad said:

I am not sure why you have deviated away from the template defence, or is the rest underneath your additions?

Don't use the word 'disagrees'.  Say 'denies'.

Those are only my additions which will then continue with the template defence. I thought pasting the whole defence would clutter the post. Sorry I did not mean for it to be confusing. 

Coupon-mad

Just checking!

Also I think review and reduce your 'facts' part of the defence to the crucial issues in one or two paragraphs.  State there was no yellow line and you have photo evidence that you will use at witness statement stage.  Also no signs near the car at all.

A lot of the rest is more suited to your later WS 'story'.

harmy69

Coupon-mad said:

Just checking!

Also I think review and reduce your 'facts' part of the defence to the crucial issues in one or two paragraphs.  State there was no yellow line and you have photo evidence that you will use at witness statement stage.  Also no signs near the car at all.

A lot of the rest is more suited to your later WS 'story'.

Thank you for all your help tonight. I will sort this out tomorrow as it’s getting a little late right now lol! 

Thank you. 

harmy69

Hey guys. 

I hope this amended draft defence is better than the previous ones as it’s getting close to the defence deadline. My house got burgled so was not able to do much on this yesterday. 

I’m not entirely sure which cases need to be included and where to fit them in. Thank you guys for your help. 

Premier Parking Logistics

(Claimant)

- and -

Me

(Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.    At around (time and date) of November 2020 the defendant drove up Allison Street in the direction of the B4100 and parked their vehicle in the “Indoor Car Park”.  Only two signs were seen on the approach to the car park plus a “Please Pay Here” sign next to the payment machine. Neither sign displayed any terms and conditions on them. Upon entering the car park the only signs on the entrance wall were on the passenger side and these stated “PAY AT MACHINE ON OUTSIDE CAR PARK” and above that there was a sign stating “CCTV IN OPERATION ON THESE PREMISES”. The defendant notes there were no signs on the drivers side of the entrance and no signs next to the payment machine regarding terms and conditions either. 

4.    The defendant recalls that the car park was poorly lit and mostly amongst shadows. The parking bays were not clearly marked and some bays were not visible at all due to lines being faded, made worse by the poor lighting. There were no yellow lines and the defendant has photographic evidence that will be provided in the witness statement. 

5.    The following day the defendant emailed his appeal as he had already paid the hourly parking charge. A reply was received dismissing the appeal and alleging that the charge was for “not parking WHOLLY within a marked bay” and that not complying  “with the terms and conditions stated on signage within the area...”. The defendant denies all these points as there was no visible or obvious signage regarding any terms and conditions within the area by which he parked his car and there was no yellow lines marked for any bay.

6.    The claim form states that the defendant admitted to the alleged contravention and agreed to pay. At no point did the defendant admit liability or agree to pay any sum in regards to that alleged contravention.  No further correspondence was received at the address provided by the defendant up until the Court Claim Form.

7.    The defendant denies that the Claimant incurred any excessive costs or damages relating to parking in the claimant's car park that day as no contract was ever formed by lack of any obvious signage regarding terms and conditions and no yellow lines were present in the parking bays.

8.    The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement....(and the defence template continues without any alterations.)