Civil Enforcement LTD Private Car Park 4 Year Old Court Claim Letter Received.

Fruitcake

I would remove this completely unless you can confirm what the actual grace period is, "any reasonable grace period" 

georgeireland

Fruitcake said:

I would remove this completely unless you can confirm what the actual grace period is, "any reasonable grace period" 

Good idea, I'll rephrase it to "which accounted for any additional time needed for this specific car park"

Thanks!

1505grandad

Are you defending as keeper only? If not add "and driver" after keeper in para 2 as presumably you deny liability as driver also.

This para (no number so cannot reference it) sounds clumpy:- 

"There was no signage about what to do regarding what to do at the front entrance if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure."

Maybe:-

There was no signage instruction at the front entrance regarding what to do if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure.

georgeireland

1505grandad said:

Are you defending as keeper only? If not add "and driver" after keeper in para 2 as presumably you deny liability as driver also.

This para (no number so cannot reference it) sounds clumpy:- 

"There was no signage about what to do regarding what to do at the front entrance if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure."

Maybe:-

There was no signage instruction at the front entrance regarding what to do if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure.

Ah missed that! I see what you mean reading it out loud didn't sound right either - I've corrected it now. Thanks!

georgeireland

Okay, I have verified with the bank that they indeed have an arrangement with the restaurant to conduct business at the car park and indeed I am not the only one that has had issues with the company (they remembered the debacle even 3 years later!)

This is what I have finally drafted after suggestions from everyone here. Before I email - any tweaks? The company have not yet responded to my SAR. Should I mention disproportionate amount requested for the alleged violation given the time there or not?

Thanks again!

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. The car park is situated behind the restaurant in a busy village, it was a bright day and there were plenty of spaces available with other cars also parked. It is a small car park with approximately 13 spaces total, one of businesses was closed at the time but the NatWest mobile banking branch uses it on agreement with the restaurant during specific times of day during the week – this was one such time and this arrangement is still occurring to this day and details of which are specified on the official NatWest website, a copy of which will be provided to the court at the Witness Statement stage.

There was no prior warning of a change in parking terms and installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras being installed.

It should be noted that the landowner cancelled its contract with the parking company and all signs and equipment were removed within 3 months after the ‘parking charge’. The existence of the parking company had a detrimental effect on its business. This is an indication that the landowner does not wish the claimant to pursue this claim.

There was no signage instruction at the front entrance regarding what to do if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure. Additionally no signage about parking access to the bank is provided at all, despite business being conducted there.

The excessive amount of text on 4 separate signs at different locations including the restaurants own meant it was unrealistic to read it all and make an informed decision within any reasonable time allowed at the car park. Additionally, the placement of signage against sunlight and behind railings means that it is incredibly difficult to read without getting out of the vehicle and walking up a footpath ramp, which accounted for any additional time needed for this specific car park.

The alleged infraction only specifies the time of entry and time of exit; it does not specify how long the vehicle was parked since ANPR camera systems are incapable of recording parking time, only time on site. 

Coupon-mad

Every paragraph needs a number, then of course re-number the rest below it.

And re this, no, the argument has no legal legs:

Should I mention disproportionate amount requested for the alleged violation given the time there or not?

georgeireland

Coupon-mad said:

Every paragraph needs a number, then of course re-number the rest below it.

And re this, no, the argument has no legal legs:

Should I mention disproportionate amount requested for the alleged violation given the time there or not?

Thank you kindly! I know the worst isn't over yet but this has been such a weight off my shoulders.

georgeireland

I had to make some adjustments as my parent wasn't too happy with the wording so here so I had to improvise and reword some and include another bit they insisted on. 

3. The car park is situated behind the restaurant in a busy village, it was a bright day and there were plenty of spaces available with other cars also parked. It is a small car park with approximately 13 spaces total, the restaurant business was closed at the time but the NatWest mobile banking branch uses it on agreement with the restaurant during specific times of day during the week – this was one such time and this arrangement is still occurring to this day and details of which are specified on the official NatWest website, a copy of which will be provided to the court at the Witness Statement stage.

(a) There was no prior warning of a change in parking terms and installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras being installed.

(b) It should be noted that the landowner cancelled its contract with the parking company and all signs and equipment were removed less than 3 months after the alleged offence. The existence of the parking company had a detrimental effect on its business. It is questionable whether the landowner even wishes to pursue this claim.

(c) There was no signage instruction at the front entrance regarding what to do if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure. Additionally, no signage about parking access to the bank is provided at all, despite business being conducted there.

(d) The excessive amount of text on 4 separate signs at different locations including the restaurants own meant it was unrealistic to read it all and make an informed decision within any reasonable time allowed at the car park. Additionally, the placement of signage against sunlight and behind railings means that it is incredibly difficult to read without getting out of the vehicle and walking up a footpath ramp, which accounted for any additional time needed for this specific car park.

(e) Access to the car park take vehicles over a busy pedestrian (walkway) pavement. Entering from a westwardly direction requires a tight left-turn. The defendant would have been adjusting the vehicle speed whilst negotiating the turn and looking out for pedestrians at the location of the mobile bank branch.

(f) The alleged infraction only specifies the time of entry and time of exit; it does not specify how long the vehicle was parked since ANPR camera systems are incapable of recording parking time, only time on site. 

Coupon-mad

That's fine as the para 3 to add to our template defence.

Fruitcake

Perhaps you could change this, 

"It is questionable whether the landowner even wishes to pursue this claim."

To this,

"It is averred that the landowner does not wish the claimant to pursue this claim, and the claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true."

The only problem would be if the landowner wanted the case to proceed, but from what you have said, this is not the case.