Received a Claim Form for an ANPR "fine" for £260.00, and don't think there's much of a defense?

Jenni_D

WS + evidence tells the story in the first person (i.e. you will be the only genuine witness to the events) and supports the defence. This is all covered in the NEWBIES thread.

Use the style and format used by @jrhys but use the one by @ricky_balboa as a template for the content, as it includes important wording re. the Government's stance regarding the double recovery charges.

(Both names are links to their profiles. Find the Discussions they've started and you'll track down their witness statements).

mylampisonthetable

I've received a letter from BW Legal offering a 25% discount to settle before the hearing (for £217). Given that I started this thread on the basis that I thought my case was unwinnable, it sounds like a reasonable offer since the difference is approx the amount of unclaimable fees added to the original claim. Before I make my decision I do need some reasonable guess as to the odds of doing better in the hearing based on the facts of this case?

Don't worry, I won't make anyone search through this whole thread! I shall summarise my points in the original defence here:

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

3. Parc Tawe has two car parks for the same retail site, with no real demarcation between them. A reasonable person would assume that they were the same. However, each of the car parks has its own set of conditions and enforcement, which can easily lead to confusion.

4. There was ambiguity between the free period in the two car parks, and the other car park had a much longer free period.

5. The signage displayed at the entrance of Parc Tawe North was inadequate, poorly placed, and considering the tiny font size used: unreadable. Considering the limited time available to read the signage while driving into the car park, no reasonable person could be expected to read and understand the signage.

6. After entry the remaining signs were also inadequate. Many vehicles could park out of sight of them. In this case, the driver was not made aware of the terms and conditions and therefore could not agree to them.

7. Any text suggesting the use of ANPR is either completely absent or inconspicuous. Of the two car parks, it is believed that only Parc Tawe North made use of ANPR at the time.

Is this a good enough defence to build upon for a WS or is it poor such that I should consider the offer?

Coupon-mad

It's a very decent defence.  Carry on!

That letter is a standard template seen from roboclaim firms at this stage, look:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79151003/#Comment_79151003

They have not looked at you case or defence and the 'offer' is not specific to you.  Ignore it.

Le_Kirk

That is a good defence if it is factual and you should be able to write a good WS and supply supporting evidence.  When offers like that come in it usually means that the clamant is unsure of their case!  Keep going, you may receive a discontinuance.

mylampisonthetable

Working hard on my WS at the moment. Incidentally I have discovered that there is nothing in my documents, anywhere, that indicates what the maximum stay period actually is for Parc Tawe North! Nor have I seen any photographs showing what the restrictions were at the site. I've had to take my own photos via Google Maps and Google Streetview, but they do not resolve the text of the signs at all. Now I will check again just in case but this is a bit baffling to me that the info I want to see making up the claimant's evidence is incomplete.

mylampisonthetable

Would there be any interest in my WS? I will be finishing it shortly and then sending it off but if it's worthwhile I can post it here for feedback.

Coupon-mad

Yep, we'd love to see it and assist.  Cover your ID and car reg on any photos, and host it in Dropbox.  Is it even due yet or are you ahead of the game?

mylampisonthetable

Due on Thursday 5th

mylampisonthetable

Here's my draft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j2u6wkczyzqolm9/BW Legal Parking WS Review.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

I would not call it 'two car parks' as you did near the start, because it's your case that the place looks like one car park.

28 says ParkingEye by mistake!

29 and 31 make no sense because adding costs is not 'double dipping' - that is the phrase for visiting a car park twice.  Not relevant.

I didn't notice yet in this draft, the usual stuff we now say to use, about thd DLUHC and what they said about the false added 'debt fee'.  Copy the end half of the first WS by @ricky_balboa instead, as that's the latest wording about the added fake costs.

You've mentioned Excel v Wilkinson but not attached it.  You must attach transcripts of cases if relying on them.

You need an index or cover sheet, and you need your costs.  See the thread I mentioned for what the whole bundle looks like.