County court business centre claim form from Uk parking control limited

ox141jf

@Fruitcake this is the correct place.
@Coupon-mad, peoples language seemed fairly foreboding.
also this happened in 2017, I cannot get more photos 

Coupon-mad

I don't think anyone came close to saying you had no legs to stand on, of course you do and must defend like everyone else does. 

You should just see how other people word their para 3, just read the forum from this week and you will find ten or more. Won't take long once you start skim-reading thread titles.  Count yourself lucky, we read every thread and every post every day (in our own spare time) and all you need to do is skim-read thread titles and look at defences, a few threads only.

Fruitcake

ox141jf said:

@Fruitcake this is the correct place.

Then you have at least five defence points as I mentioned in my previous posts.

ox141jf

Fruitcake said:

Is this the place?

15 Paradise St - Google Maps



If you approached with the site on your right you wouldn't see the sign on the fence at all.



If you approached from the left, you wouldn't see let alone be able to read the sign on the grey building under the name Cooper Callas.



Images from 2016 show people sitting outside as if they are on a break.
Images from 2018 show the place as being a building site.
I would aver that the site had been sold for development before the date of the alleged event, meaning the claimant no longer had a contract with the landowner, and put them to strict proof that the contrary was true.

The signs are also forbidding in nature, so that should be an additional defence point.

What do you mean by they are foreboding in nature, how can that apply to a defence?

ox141jf

is this more appropriate:

3. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have parked at the nearby park and ride. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and was located above eye level.

Please refer to the images provided by UKPC that show the graffitied walls, the single sign placed to the right, on the top of a fence and the street view images that demonstrate the lack of visible signage when coming to park.

t

Coupon-mad

You don't add images to a defence.  That comes later, as the NEWBIES thread explains.

Le_Kirk

ox141jf said:

What do you mean by they are foreboding in nature, how can that apply to a defence?

That would be "forbidding" in nature and it means that as there was no offer of contract, no contract can have been broken.

Fruitcake

You have not mentioned the fact that the defendant was unloading, nor that the judge in the Jopson vs Homeguard case stated that loading and unloading is not parking. You should state that this was an appeal court case and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts. You should include the case number, the name of the judge, and the date of that case. The transcript is available online. Look around paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Jopson case to find the judge's comments.

You also need to state that the signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed.

In addition, you haven't averred that you believe the site had been sold before the date of the alleged event, and that the claimant did not have a contract with the new landowner, nor have you put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Coupon-mad

All of which are vital to your defence of course and will need a few extra paragraph numbers.  Don't try to write that lot as para 3 alone.

ox141jf

Fruitcake said:

You have not mentioned the fact that the defendant was unloading, nor that the judge in the Jopson vs Homeguard case stated that loading and unloading is not parking. You should state that this was an appeal court case and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts. You should include the case number, the name of the judge, and the date of that case. The transcript is available online. Look around paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Jopson case to find the judge's comments.

You also need to state that the signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed.

In addition, you haven't averred that you believe the site had been sold before the date of the alleged event, and that the claimant did not have a contract with the new landowner, nor have you put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

I contacted ukpc about if they were in operation legally and this is what i got:

DPO via ukpc.onmicrosoft.com	Wed, 22 Dec, 12:31 (2 days ago)
to Jared

Dear Jared,

 

We can confirm the site was actively operating by us at the time of the parking charge being issued to you.

 

With regards to providing proof of contract, we are not obligated to provide this to you as this does not fall under a subject access request. If you want further details, please contact the property directly as this email address is purely for data protection queries.

 

Kind Regards