Defend or pay

go-on-then

You dont appear to have said anything in your defence about the lack of signs etc as you did in your opening post.  Use it.
It may sound picky but it sounds odd saying ' the vehicle was driven by a number of people in the family '   this implies everyone was in the vehicle driving at the same time!   Better to say something along the lines of several people/ family members are insured to drive the vehicle.  The wording is important.

I suggest you read over more defences from posters in a similar situation to yours,  it's a common one,  and see what they have to say. 

StevenU

Is this ok - 
The signage on the site is very small and positioned up high and is impossible to read. It is a free car park and it is not obvious there are rules and regulations you are agreeing to when you park there. Picture 1 attached supplied by the claimant shows inadequate signage.
Also it appears that the area parked in by the defendant has now been cordoned off by painted lines due to the amount of confusion it caused as shown in picture 2 below.

Coupon-mad

If this is defence stage you do not append exhibits or images.  That comes later.

See the post by @bargepole about court procedures, that you may have missed when you read the NEWBIES thread second post about court stage.  It's in the section under the red heading in capitals (designed to make Newbie posters read it) entitled 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

StevenU

Area was not marked when parked in as shown below.

Coupon-mad

That is marked as a bay and your car is well outside of it. A judge will see what I see, so this may be difficult for you.

fisherjim

StevenU said:

Area was not marked when parked in as shown below.

Quite clearly the vehicle is well outside the bay, which IS marked, you are clutching at straws I'm afraid, and parking over their attempt at pedestrian crossing markings makes it worse.

If I were judging this I would say you were purposely trying to protect your nice looking car from being dinged by others doors on the right.

StevenU

It’s not a bay hence the confusion 

go-on-then

The red bricks might say they are a bay ? 

Redx

Plus if it's not in a bay it certainly broke any rules that say it should be wholly within a bay ! So either way it's no legal argument for Court ( it's either fully within a marked bay , or it's not , they say not ! )

It should be in a marked bay like the one to the right !

Coupon-mad

It is/was a bay.  The red bricks show it was intended to be one originally.

Had you stayed inside them you'd have been OK but the photo looks like it's someone who has parked selfishly because they don't want a car door hitting their piece of branded metal (not saying that was the thought process but that's how it looks, a driver who thinks their car is more precious than the next car). That's what a Judge might think, too.

If it's not a bay then parking there thinking it's not a bay but 'I'll just stick the car here on the end anyway' is worse...

...however, this should be in the defence:

it appears that the area parked in by the defendant has now been cordoned off by painted lines due to the amount of confusion it caused