We won today

bargepole

Your paragraph numbering is all over the place with cardinal numbers, letters in brackets and not in brackets, roman numerals etc. All that will do is serve to confuse the Judge trying to read and make sense of it.

Just arrange your paragraphs so that each one deals with a specific point, and number them sequentially, 1, 2, 3 etc., no sub-paragraphs, this is a Defence for a piddling parking ticket, not the Treaty of Maastricht.

BelladonnaTook

Hahaha, that's the first time I've laughed for days! 
"Treaty of Maastricht"  ..omigawk, there are tears rolling down my face 
Thanks! 

bargepole

I would extend para. 2 as follows:

2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is trite law that, in a private parking scenario, a contract can be formed between the parking operator and the driver by means of the signage displayed, and the conduct of the driver. However, as was held in the Beavis case, the signage has to be clear and prominently displayed such that a driver cannot fail to have seen it and thus become bound by the contractual terms. In this case, as detailed below, no clear and prominent signage was present at the location, and any purported terms were not sufficiently brought to the attention of the Defendant. It is the Defendant's case that no contractual liability arises, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Umkomaas

@BelladonnaTook ☝️ You won't get it better than that. ☝️

BelladonnaTook

Bless you 

bargepole

BelladonnaTook said:

Bless you 

Thank you, but this is only half the battle.

When it comes to your WS and evidence bundle, you will need to include photos from the site, showing what the signage looked like as you drove in and parked. The Claimant will probably include the clean graphical images of their signs, in an attempt to fool the Judge into believing they were clear and prominent.

Coupon-mad

Happy reading, get up to speed with the new Code of Practice from the DLUHC. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013061/#Comment_79013061

That thread explains why it matters even to existing cases and it's not even in the Template Defence yet because it's so new but can be added to the witness statement later.

BelladonnaTook

Thank you @Coupon-mad. I filed the Defence about four hours before your 3:09am comment - and I thought I was the proverbial 'night-owl'!

I did incorporate some of the new Code into an early draft Defence statement but it then seemed far too wordy and after further advice on here, chopped the DS down to the minimum. I will include it in the WS.

One thing that still puzzles me is how the PPCs have been allowed up to six years before notifying people about alleged contraventions. It is difficult enough after a few months even, for drivers to recall details - and as it seems to be in this case, the PPCs can go and change or add signage since the date of the alleged contravention.
This means there is no level playing field from the start: it puts the driver at a huge disadvantage. 
I know that the new statutory Code states, 'it is important that the individual who is suspected of contravening relevant obligations is informed as soon as possible that a notice of parking charge has been raised..' but 'as soon as possible' is so vague - and who defines what 'as soon as possible' means?
To me it may mean a day or a week; to a PPC it could mean 'just as long as it takes for us to appear to be compliant but long enough for our victims to have no clue about anything'.

Sorry, I'm just having at rant at the invisible &53#!s out there due to frustration as:

• MP was a waste of time, couldn't give a monkeys basically
• Ditto the retail store CEO (even though @betman had success with him and my email was well-written)
• The property manager wasn't interested
• The landowner turns out to be one of those offshore-registered companies whose name appears in the Panama Papers! (doesn't mean they have done anything wrong of course, no judgement there)

Weird how these people seem to not care one jot - perhaps their furlough millions are keeping their nests lined, so why would they care about piddling little customers or the peasants public, who knows?

Umkomaas

One thing that still puzzles me is how the PPCs have been allowed up to six years before notifying people about alleged contraventions.

That rule applies to any person/organisation who believes a debt is owed - your milkman, your plumber, your kitchen fitter all have 6 years to pursue you through the small claims court if they believe you owe them money.  It's not restricted to private parking firms. The Limitation Act 1980 is the relevant legislation. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

BelladonnaTook

I might find out if there's a campaign about the Limitation Act then and join it !