Highview Parking court claim

Redx

thomson_adam said:

Redx , again thanks for all of your support.

i have been searching the forum and cant seem to find the "template defence"

Top of this forum , 5 announcements stuck up there , second from the top  , first post in that thread

Use a laptop not a phone

Coupon-mad

You had all you needed from @KeithP

Bespoke advice and links. 

thomson_adam

Hello Everyone
thanks for the help , my partner would have been lost without it.
would you be able to look over her defense , i have only included sections 2 and 3 as she has used the template from the forum . 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 

2.       the Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £511.40 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50.00 Legal representative’s costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCN’S that have been issued against the Defendants vehicle  at Buzz Bingo Leicester

 

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

 

3.

 Signs on location were not able to be seen and understood upon entry when a “contract” was deemed, by the claimant, to be formed

3.1

Signs with small print, without reflective backing or illumination, located in hard to see locations are not suitable for reading whilst in safe control of a vehicle.

3.2

As this is a retail park there are many different companies in this location it is very difficult to determine which carpark belongs to which premise.

3.3

The Defendant's vehicle was recorded on the 22/06/2019 duration 03:40:19 and 19/07/2019 duration 00:43:14. The signage does not state maximum duration, it only mentions that the car park is for buzz bingo customers.

3.4

Not once has the claimant asked the defendant is he/she was a buzz bingo customer and issued a parking fine on an assumption that the defendant was not.

3.5

The defendant has spoken to the branch manager who has requested both PCNS be candled via email.  

 

Coupon-mad

Cancelled, not 'candled'.

Apart from that, and adding an extra paragraph number as you can't have unnumbered paragraphs ('It is admitted...' has no number) it looks ready to sign, date and email to the CCBC.

Le_Kirk

thomson_adam said:

would you be able to look over her defense defence, i have only included sections 2 and 3 as she has used the template from the forum . 

2.       the The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £511.40 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50.00 Legal representative’s costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCN’S Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) that have been issued against the Defendants vehicle AB02CDE at Buzz Bingo Leicester

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

3.  Signs on location were not able to be seen and understood upon entry when a “contract” was deemed, by the claimant, to be formed

3.1 Signs with small print, without reflective backing or illumination, located in hard to see locations are not suitable for reading whilst in safe control of a vehicle.

3.2 As this is a retail park there are many different companies in this location it is very difficult to determine which carpark belongs to which premises premise.

3.3 The Defendant's vehicle was recorded on the 22/06/2019 duration 03:40:19 and 19/07/2019 duration 00:43:14. The signage does not state maximum duration, it only mentions that the car park is for buzz bingo customers.

3.4 Not once has the claimant asked the defendant is he/she was a buzz bingo customer and issued a parking fine on an assumption that the defendant was not.

3.5 The defendant has spoken to the branch manager who has requested both PCNs be candled cancelled via email.  

Changes above. Premise has a different meaning to premises!  As advised by @Coupon-mad candled should be cancelled unless they get on your wick and every paragraph requires a number.  Unless that was a joke VRM you have left your VRM visible.  The first time you use an acronym, you should state it in full with the acronym in brackets and thereafter you can use just the acronym.  Keep all points about the same matter together, you have 3 and 3.1 about signs and then 3.2 which is different (slightly) and then 3.3 which is back to signs.  Also make sure you are not duplicating matters that are already included in the standard defence template.

1505grandad

"2.       the Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £511.40 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50.00 Legal representative’s costs)."

Just checking  -  earlier in the thread you stated  -  was this a typo?:-

"It’s parking view 

£440

£50 court fees

£50 legal fees"

thomson_adam

1505grandad said:

"2.       the Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £511.40 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50.00 Legal representative’s costs)."

Just checking  -  earlier in the thread you stated  -  was this a typo?:-

"It’s parking view 

£440

£50 court fees

£50 legal fees"

Sorry , my mistake on the first post

thomson_adam

As per peoples comments 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 

The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £511.40 (inclusive of £50 Court Fee & £50.00 Legal representative’s costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to two PCN’S Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) that have been issued against the Defendants vehicle AB02CDE at Buzz Bingo Leicester

 

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

 

3.  Signs on location were not able to be seen and understood upon entry when a “contract” was deemed, by the claimant, to be formed

 

3.1 Signs with small print, without reflective backing or illumination, located in hard to see locations are not suitable for reading whilst in safe control of a vehicle.

 

3.2 As this is a retail park there are many different companies in this location it is very difficult to determine which carpark belongs to which premises premise.

 

3.3 The Defendant's vehicle was recorded on the 22/06/2019 duration 03:40:19 and 19/07/2019 duration 00:43:14. The signage does not state maximum duration, it only mentions that the car park is for buzz bingo customers.

 

3.4 Not once has the claimant asked the defendant is he/she was a buzz bingo customer and issued a parking fine on an assumption that the defendant was not.

 

3.5 The defendant has spoken to the branch manager who has requested both PCNs be candled cancelled via email. 

thomson_adam

last question i hope 

what font and size should be used ? what spacing ? 

KeithP

thomson_adam said:

last question i hope 

what font and size should be used ? what spacing ? 

That's in Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from the second post of the NEWBIES thread.