Gladstones /court defence help

Redx

Dane19 said:

Redx said:

Do not fill anything else in on the MCOL website , treat it as read only , no typing !! Everything else from now on is done by email only , no paperwork , no posting , no online submissions , just emails

You told KeithP that the AOS was already done , but no date , details are crucial in these matters , so check the MCOL claim history for exact details

I filled it in yesterday which is 5 days after the issue date, I believe I now have 28 days. 

I’ve already started drafting using the template in newbies.

What would be the difference between this defence and the witness statement that will come later on? Meaning do I just have to touch on the points and elaborate them later or do I go full hands on.

The former , open the doors concisely in the defence , go through them into the TARDIS in the WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment in several months time

tboo

Dane19 said:

on a access road leading to car parks which leads to car parks of offices. At the time he was not aware it was a private road and most likely the signs would have not been readable. 

that signage clearly states NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME.

Give a link to google maps so we can have a look.

D_P_Dance

One could hardly read the sign (the contract)  in the time your father was there surely.

patient_dream

that signage clearly states NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME.

WHOSE LAND IS IT and does the PPC have the authority to issue tickets ??

KeithP

If there is a sign that says NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME and the driver did actually park on a roadway, then there is no way that the driver agreed any parking contract.

It simply is not possible to agree a contract to do something that is forbidden. 

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

If there is a sign that says NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME and the driver did actually park on a roadway, then there is no way that the driver agreed any parking contract.

It simply is not possible to agree a contract to do something that is forbidden. 

In other words, the signage is forbidding in nature. This should be added to the inadequate signage part of the template, or included as a separate paragraph.

Para 2 of the template in this situation would be something like, "It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver on the date of the alleged event, but liability is denied."

Para 3 should then describe the location and event to set the scene so the judge can understand why the charge is bogus.
An unremarkable road on an unremarkable day, or alternatively perhaps the defendant has a clear memory because ...
Describe the weather and light conditions if relevant
Either signage wasn't present, or wasn't visible, or was confusing, or damaged/covered/defaced/facing away from the direction of travel etcetera.
A subsequent site visit showed the signage to be all of the above, and/or forbidding, or the claimant's own evidence shows the signage to be as above, or forbidding, or a stock image not taken from the location at the time of the alleged event.
Not enough time to read the signs
Lack of grace period
Breach of CoP
Perhaps the driver stopped to read the Ts and Cs only to find that by stopping to read them, they breached the Ts and Cs. This is an unfair contract term, entrapment, and a clause for impossibility. You can't agree to form a contract without breaching the contract.

Make it brief and succinct so you can expand on it at WS/exhibits stage.

A landowner cancellation is always best, and this can be done right up to the date of the hearing. If the defendant was visiting a business, the business owner/CEO may be able to help with a cancellation.

Dane19

tboo said:

Dane19 said:

on a access road leading to car parks which leads to car parks of offices. At the time he was not aware it was a private road and most likely the signs would have not been readable. 

that signage clearly states NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME.

Give a link to google maps so we can have a look.

https://goo.gl/maps/oksRC7Cc1HBrjdc98

D_P_Dance said:

One could hardly read the sign (the contract)  in the time your father was there surely.

Can I say that he stoped and got out to read read the sign and then left once realising it’s terms. Even though it’s logical would it hold any weight ?

KeithP said:

If there is a sign that says NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME and the driver did actually park on a roadway, then there is no way that the driver agreed any parking contract.

It simply is not possible to agree a contract to do something that is forbidden. 

In google maps I could not see any such signs , only some small ones which I can’t read on the maps.

patient_dream said:

that signage clearly states NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME.

WHOSE LAND IS IT and does the PPC have the authority to issie tickets ??

I don’t know , the only reason I know it’s private because I read another post where someone had enquired from the council about it.

Fruitcake said:

KeithP said:

If there is a sign that says NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANYTIME and the driver did actually park on a roadway, then there is no way that the driver agreed any parking contract.

It simply is not possible to agree a contract to do something that is forbidden. 

In other words, the signage is forbidding in nature. This should be added to the inadequate signage part of the template, or included as a separate paragraph.

Para 2 of the template in this situation would be something like, "It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver on the date of the alleged event, but liability is denied."

Para 3 should then describe the location and event to set the scene so the judge can understand why the charge is bogus.
An unremarkable road on an unremarkable day, or alternatively perhaps the defendant has a clear memory because ...
Describe the weather and light conditions if relevant
Either signage wasn't present, or wasn't visible, or was confusing, or damaged/covered/defaced/facing away from the direction of travel etcetera.
A subsequent site visit showed the signage to be all of the above, and/or forbidding, or the claimant's own evidence shows the signage to be as above, or forbidding, or a stock image not taken from the location at the time of the alleged event.
Not enough time to read the signs
Lack of grace period
Breach of CoP
Perhaps the driver stopped to read the Ts and Cs only to find that by stopping to read them, they breached the Ts and Cs. This is an unfair contract term, entrapment, and a clause for impossibility. You can't agree to form a contract without breaching the contract.

Make it brief and succinct so you can expand on it at WS/exhibits stage.

A landowner cancellation is always best, and this can be done right up to the date of the hearing. If the defendant was visiting a business, the business owner/CEO may be able to help with a cancellation.

He wasn’t visiting any business there , he’s satnav just took him into a wrong turn and he at the end of the road he stopped to get his directions right. 

At the end of the road is a car park which he never entered he turned round stoped for 90 secs and left. It was marked with double yellow .

So can I use the argument you mentioned as the main focal point that he read the sign and realising there is no parking allowed anywhere he left. ?

I have attached the some pics ,  Entrance of the road, and the pictures from the notice.

Coupon-mad

Can I say that he stoped and got out to read read the sign and then left once realising it’s terms. Even though it’s logical would it hold any weight ?

Absolutely.

Write it alongside the fact that he realised he was in the wrong place, reset the Satnav and left, finding alternative parking nearby instead.  AND quoting the correct Code of Practice for that year, about AOS members having to allow a fair consideration period to read signs and elect not to enter into any contract, by leaving the premises, as he did.

D_P_Dance

Can I say that he stoped and got out to read read the sign and then left once realising it’s terms. 

You can, but did you have enough time to read it?

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount OF £70 for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

tboo

Are they allowed to add on interest and then a daily incurring charge?

Do many parking companies do this?

eta wrong one.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/section/69

Power to award interest on debts and damages.

(1)Subject to [F1rules of court], in proceedings (whenever instituted) before [F2the county court] for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and—

(a)in the case of any sum paid before judgment, the date of the payment; and

(b)in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment.

(2)In relation to a judgment given for damages for personal injuries or death which exceed £200 subsection (1) shall have effect—

(a)with the substitution of “shall be included” for “may be included”; and

(b)with the addition of “unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons to the contrary” after “given”, where first occurring.

(3)Subject to [F1rules of court], where—

(a)there are proceedings (whenever instituted) before [F2the county court] for the recovery of a debt; and

(b)the defendant pays the whole debt to the plaintiff (otherwise than in pursuance of a judgment in the proceedings),

the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the payment.

(4)Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs.

(5)Interest under this section may be calculated at different rates in respect of different periods.

(6)In this section “plaintiff” means the person seeking the debt or damages and “defendant” means the person from whom the plaintiff seeks the debt or damages and “personal injuries” includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition.

(7)Nothing in this section affects the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange.

[F3(8)In determining whether the amount of any debt or damages exceeds that prescribed by or under any enactment, no account shall be taken of any interest payable by virtue of this section except where express provision to the contrary is made by or under that or any other enactment.]