UKPC Claim Form - Defence help

Redx

Mintyfeeling said:

Redx said:

Use the relevant CoP at the time , not the new one , so leave 15 unchanged

Instead , add the new suggested paragraph that bargepole posted yesterday , typically around paragraph 6 , so after your adapted paragraphs , then renumber after adding back the rest of the template with no changes except numbering

Okay, thanks. I'll remove the references to the new CoP. And I'll dig up the other bargepole paragraph.

Much appreciated.

It's the one where you insert some data

1505grandad

A heads-up:-

Hopefully you have read and understood the Template Defence and therefore realise that the existing para 7  in the Template states -  "He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed."

As you now have more than paras 2 and 3 - and therefore have to renumber the subsequent paras - you have altered the reference to point 5 accordingly.

Coupon-mad

I disagree a bit.  You were right to change #15 as that was talking about this now-published Code, good spot!

I will of course need to adapt the Template Defence soon!  You've helped.

You should mainly refer to the BPA CoP elsewhere, about signs though.  Later on during the process, in your WS, you can bring in more from the new Code and how a requirement prominence of signs is not news to BPA members because it's already in statute law (Consumer Rights Act 2015 'test of prominence' which the template defence already says).

Mintyfeeling

Coupon-mad said:

I disagree a bit.  You were right to change #15 as that was talking about this now-published Code, good spot!

I will of course need to adapt the Template Defence soon!  You've helped.

You should mainly refer to the BPA CoP elsewhere, about signs though.  Later on during the process, in your WS, you can bring in more from the new Code and how a requirement prominence of signs is not news to BPA members because it's already in statute law (Consumer Rights Act 2015 'test of prominence' which the template defence already says).

Brilliant, thank you. Yes it looks much better now with just the BPA CoP references, especially since they're both basically repeating the same stuff about signs.

1505grandad said:

A heads-up:-

Hopefully you have read and understood the Template Defence and therefore realise that the existing para 7  in the Template states -  "He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed."

As you now have more than paras 2 and 3 - and therefore have to renumber the subsequent paras - you have altered the reference to point 5 accordingly.

Yep, thank you I spotted that one. Good reminder to double check though. And yeh, I hope I understand it too

Redx said:

It's the one where you insert some data

Thanks but I think I already added it. It was this one: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78970069/#Comment_78970069 and that is the one I added (with my data filled in).

You're all amazing for giving so much time here.

bloodyccbc

I have emailed my defence to CCBC today, inserted a new paragraph #6 and changed the rest accordingly. Not sure how reference from #7 effects #5 when #5 hasn’t been renumbered. Unless of course another paragraph has been inserted prior to #5 by anyone. 

The point of #15. (#16 once renumbered) that remained in mine, mainly because I didn’t spot the reference to the new rule but on reflection I don’t see it being a negative remaining in the defence anyway along with @bargepole inserted paragraph being there. 

1505grandad

So just checking  -  does your Defence para 5 include the following (because when I posted, your draft para 5 was about surface markings):-

"..........and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135."

Redx

bloodyccbc said:

I have emailed my defence to CCBC today, inserted a new paragraph #6 and changed the rest accordingly. Not sure how reference from #7 effects #5 when #5 hasn’t been renumbered. Unless of course another paragraph has been inserted prior to #5 by anyone. 

The point of #15. (#16 once renumbered) that remained in mine, mainly because I didn’t spot the reference to the new rule but on reflection I don’t see it being a negative remaining in the defence anyway along with @bargepole inserted paragraph being there. 

That's ok , nobody else has mentioned changing 15 , we tend to discourage people from changing the rest of the template , but given this week's news , I now concur that if the Bargepole paragraph is in at say 6 , then 15 now 16 should be altered too

Some people have 3 as maybe 2 to 5 paragraphs , so insert more , hence why the point about the Somerfield case reference usually needs changing to the correct paragraph

So your defence probably could not be more up to date 🤔🤔👍👍👍

bloodyccbc

1505grandad said:

So just checking  -  does your Defence para 5 include the following (because when I posted, your draft para 5 was about surface markings):-

"..........and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135."

Yes it does but no mention of surface markings in #5. 

Please continue.

Mintyfeeling

bloodyccbc said:

1505grandad said:

So just checking  -  does your Defence para 5 include the following (because when I posted, your draft para 5 was about surface markings):-

"..........and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135."

Yes it does but no mention of surface markings in #5. 

Please continue.

I think there may have been a mix up as you are not the OP in this thread (did you mean to post your question here?). My defence does mention surface markings in #5. But my numbers are sorted.

Btw I think what you sent was fine from the sounds of it.

bloodyccbc

Mintyfeeling said:

bloodyccbc said:

1505grandad said:

So just checking  -  does your Defence para 5 include the following (because when I posted, your draft para 5 was about surface markings):-

"..........and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135."

Yes it does but no mention of surface markings in #5. 

Please continue.

I think there may have been a mix up as you are not the OP in this thread (did you mean to post your question here?). My defence does mention surface markings in #5. But my numbers are sorted.

Btw I think what you sent was fine from the sounds of it.

I was just wondering this. I think @1505grandad may have me confused with you. Sorry didn’t want to but in on your post but if I see something to comment on or ask questions about… I like to. 🤦🏽‍♂️