GXS - BWlegal - Shoreham Harbour - Defence

orange_bag

Coupon-mad said:

orange_bag said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine.  Hope you removed the other bit.  You can't be saying you were in a hurry and that's why you missed terms.

Being local-ish, I've no idea why people park there.  This is Southwick or Portslade area?  The roads are free to park near the beach and I would never in a million years look for a car park at Shoreham Port.

I was collecting someone from the beach area right next to the car park. Hove lagoon end of the port.

A place with free parking on-street beside the pub, along the road that comes off at the traffic lights, leading to 'millionaire's row' at Hove Lagoon. And some parking near the King Alfred too.

There is never a reason to use a car park there and you can pay and display (with no parking shark risk) along the entire length of A259 seafront road, beside Hove lawns.

I am trying my hardest to encourage people not to seek out a car park to park a car.  This is where drivers are gong wrong. I never look for car parks - but then I realise I'm unusual and know all there is to know about PPCs and where to avoid like the plague.

Thank you for pointing these out.. I am usually quite careful where I park.

I honestly thought this car park belonged to gym customers and with it being closed (due to lock down) thought it would be OK for the short time I would be there. There were lots of cars there on the day which gave the impression of it being OK. I guess the PPC issued lots of tickets that day to people in a similar situation, I find it difficult to believe that they all had permits.

Are there any other changes I should make on my defence? Should I be mentioning my appeal? The PPC did not correct me about byelaws if I was wrong? 

This is where I am:

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

 

3. The day in question was during lockdown and the defendant was called to the area to pick someone up who had been exercising nearby and was too tired to get home of their own accord. The defendant believed the car park belonged to the gym onsite. As it was during lockdown, the gym was closed so the defendant did not believe it an issue to park for the short time needed to collect their loved one from the beach nearby. The defendant was parked for approximately 30 minutes and did not receive any ticket or notice on their windscreen on returning to their vehicle. 

4. Some time after receiving the first letter from GXS services limited the defendant was in the area of the car park in question. They noticed that the signage was different from the photographs received with the notice to keeper. The signs are prominent, coloured and difficult to miss and use a popular payment app called 'PayByPhone' which the defendant is familiar with and has used on numerous occasions. Had signs like these been in place on the date in question any driver would find it difficult to miss them.

Coupon-mad

I think 3 should be changed to blame the lack of signage more, and remove your assumption that you didn't think it would be a problem.

orange_bag

Coupon-mad said:

I think 3 should be changed to blame the lack of signage more, and remove your assumption that you didn't think it would be a problem.

3. The day in question was during lockdown and the defendant was called to the area to pick someone up who had been exercising nearby and was too tired to get home of their own accord. At the time of parking the defendant did not notice any signs, and certainly did not think that they were entering any kind of contract by parking there. The defendant believed the car park belonged to the gym onsite, as it was during lockdown, the gym was closed. The defendant was parked for approximately 30 minutes the time needed to collect their loved one from the beach nearby. The defendant did not receive any ticket or notice on their windscreen on returning to their vehicle, only a notice to keeper was received through the post at a later date.  

better?

Coupon-mad

At the time of parking there were no prominent signs, and the defendant certainly did not understand for one minute that they were entering any kind of contract.  It is denied that any terms were agreed by conduct or otherwise.  The defendant believed the car park belonged to the gym...

orange_bag

Coupon-mad said:

At the time of parking there were no prominent signs, and the defendant certainly did not understand for one minute that they were entering any kind of contract.  It is denied that any terms were agreed by conduct or otherwise.  The defendant believed the car park belonged to the gym...

Thank you. I will amend and email my defence today

Coupon-mad

Send it during working hours only and make sure you get an acknowledgement email straight back.

orange_bag

Coupon-mad said:

Send it during working hours only and make sure you get an acknowledgement email straight back.

I sent a got the acknowledgement back. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, does this come through the post? 

KeithP

orange_bag said:

Coupon-mad said:

Send it during working hours only and make sure you get an acknowledgement email straight back.

Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, does this come through the post? 

Yes. Will be some weeks though.

orange_bag

I have yet to receive the directions questionnaire.

I have received a letter through the post, acknowledgement receipt of my defence, from the CCBC saying that a copy has been served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).

The letter states that the claimant may contact me directly to try and resolve any dispute - I imagine that means I will be getting another letter from them.

It goes on to say that the should the claimant wish to proceed they must contact the court within 28 days after receiving the defence and if not the the claim will be stayed. - Is this the normal procedure?

orange_bag

orange_bag said:

 Is this the normal procedure?

I only ask as I didn't read this step anywhere.