Thought I had a defence lined up, now doubting myself

Le_Kirk

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

You were advised to change the above.

MildPanic

Apologies, I was, thank you:

*Edited to show only updated sections.

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.   On the date in question the Defendant was on their way back from their lunch break to their allocated parking space at their place of work XXX XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX (200m north of the car park in question).  On setting off the Defendant had enough fuel in their vehicle to get back to work and then to a petrol station at the end of the day to re-fuel.  Having owned the vehicle for several years and being familiar with the fuelling requirements, the Defendant was not concerned about the level of fuel at the start of the journey. The traffic was unexpectedly heavy and stop-start all the way back from lunch. The Defendants vehicle began to slow and judder on a busy dual carriageway (200m from the Defendants usual place of work). Sensing the vehicle was about to conk out, the Defendant looked for a safe place to pull over, the pavement to their left had railings, preventing the Defendant from being able to remove their vehicle out of the flow of the fast-moving traffic.  The defendant spotted an opening and dropped kerb, which they saw to be the xxxx car park

Umkomaas

Only show the paragraphs you have changed (and highlight the changes), we don't need to see the entire shooting match every time you alter the odd word or sentence!

Trainerman

Umkomaas said:

Only show the paragraphs you have changed (and highlight the changes), we don't need to see the entire shooting match every time you alter the odd word or sentence!

I had precisely the same irritation thought. Why do people do this ?????

MildPanic

Perhaps because this is very new for most of the people who seek help/guidance on this forum and whilst they should be giving it their complete attention, they might also have limited time/distractions due to work/caring responsibilities or just generally be struggling with the stress this on its own could cause.

I have edited my post to only show the sections changed.

Coupon-mad

I think now add one paragraph that says this was an emergency stop outside of the Defendant's control and at no time did the defendant park, use a bay or agree to enter into a contract with this Claimant.  The car was moved as soon as a colleague brought a petrol can over (or whatever).

MildPanic

Thank you.

Added paragraph (and re-numbered subsequent paragraphs):

4.  This was an emergency stop outside of the Defendant's control and at no time did the defendant park, use a bay or agree to enter into a contract with this Claimant.  The vehicle was moved as soon as a jerry can of fuel had been purchased and decanted into the vehicle’s petrol tank. 

MildPanic

I am submitting my defence tomorrow, .

Once that is done I want to start work on my WS.

I've read a few WS' and everyone references evidence such as photos of signage.  Star Park seems to have ceased trading and the car park in question has had all signage removed, so I am unable to provide any evidence of what the signs said other than the entrance signs that are available via GSV history.

Do I just proceed with abuse of process and hope that, in the likely event it gets to Court, I am ordered to pay just the original PCN of £100?

go-on-then

Google and read as much as you can for evidence of signage around the time of the incident.  Did the carpark belong to a company or shops nearby or if you know the name of the carpark,  google that,  maybe other parking complaints / newspaper articles about it.  Maybe a long shot but you have to dig. 
Surprising what you can find online. 

Redx

MildPanic said:

I am submitting my defence tomorrow, .

Once that is done I want to start work on my WS.

I've read a few WS' and everyone references evidence such as photos of signage.  Star Park seems to have ceased trading and the car park in question has had all signage removed, so I am unable to provide any evidence of what the signs said other than the entrance signs that are available via GSV history.

Do I just proceed with abuse of process and hope that, in the likely event it gets to Court, I am ordered to pay just the original PCN of £100?

Abuse of process is no defence to the Main court claim , only the spurious extra charges they added on , which are already an item in the defence template , so don't expect to win on abuse of process , because you won't !

A win is on signage or landowner contract etc , so a technicality , not abuse of process

If you did lose in court , you are expecting to pay £100 for the PCN plus say £100 in court costs and legal fees , making around £200 in total , meaning the spurious charges are dismissed