2x Seperate Parking Tickets (I Know!) At Different Stages

Coupon-mad

Write what you do know and why you believe the car was in a disabled bay (like I said in my earlier reply about telling the Judge what you do and don't know).

marineralpha

DEFENCE

 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

3. On the day in question the defendant cannot be certain of who was using the car. There are multiple people with legal access to the car and therefore it cannot be determined who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence. There are various shops on the land in question where the driver on the day in question could have been visiting. The fact that it was parked in a disabled bay leads me to think that my Grandmother (now deceased) was in the car at the time and the defendant believes her to have been a disabled badge holder.

Le_Kirk

You should write the defence in the third person and you have a superfluous "me" and "my" in paragraph 3# and of course that should be changed to "the defendant".  Not sure that "the charge and the claim were an unexpected shock" is actually a defence point and that should be saved for the witness statement.  If you are sure that the car carried a disabled passenger you should be more assertive and say so and put the claimant to strict proof of the opposite.
It is usual to phrase it thus: -

On the day in question t The defendant cannot be certain of who was using driving the car on an unremarkable day XX months/years ago, as there are multiple people with legal access to the car and therefore it cannot be determined who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the event offence.

marineralpha

I can't be 100% about the badge to be honest.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

3. The defendant cannot be certain of who was driving the car on an unremarkable day in December 2019 as there are multiple people with legal access to the car and therefore it cannot be determined who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the event. There are various shops on the land in question where the driver on the day in question could have been visiting. The fact that it was parked in a disabled bay leads me to think that the defendants Grandmother (now deceased) was in the car at the time and the defendant believes her to have been a disabled badge holder.

Coupon-mad

You don't need to be. As long as it's your honest belief.

Have you seen a photo of the car in a disabled bay?  Is it properly parked, or overhanging bay lines, or what?

Importantly, is there evidence of a FULL terms & conditions sign readable from the accessible bay?

Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk said:

Not sure that "the charge and the claim were an unexpected shock" is actually a defence point and that should be saved for the witness statement.  

I've just realised that this part was added by @Coupon-mad in the most recent template so please feel free to leave it in; whilst I don't think it is a defence point, I would not knowingly contradict what @Coupon-mad has written

Coupon-mad

I put it in to set the scene right at the start, that there was no agreement nor meeting of minds.

marineralpha

I filed my defence on Monday.

Umkomaas

marineralpha said:

I filed my defence on Monday.

Have you had acknowledgment from the CCBC?  Check your junk/spam file if you don't have it in your inbox. Check your MCOL history.

marineralpha

Umkomaas said:

marineralpha said:

I filed my defence on Monday.

Have you had acknowledgment from the CCBC?  Check your junk/spam file if you don't have it in your inbox. Check your MCOL history.

Yes I have, and the solicitors