Minster Baywatch Ltd Claim Issued through Gladstones Solicitors LTD - CASE DISMISSED!!

Coupon-mad

That's far too long and unnecessary.  Also it is very confusing, because you say you stopped for something to eat (don't just say a 'bite', which is slang) yet you then say:

"The defendant believes that stopping a car for 5 minutes whilst asking for directions to a destination cannot be construed in any way as parking."

Eh?

Just have one concise 'facts' paragraph 3 that says why you were there and that the signage was inadequate because there was nothing prominent alerting drivers that it was a permit area (or was it pay & display?  Your defence doesn't make it clear).  Therefore there was no agreed contract.

All the rest can be saved for WS and evidence stage. Later on, which you need to prepare for and not miss that too.

The Template Defence already covers the CRA 2015 and you do not need to go off on tangents like planning permission which are not relevant.

Yanness

Le_Kirk said:

That still looks like a witness statement.  Read some other defences that posters have based on the defence template.  Have a look at your status page on MCOL and see if the claimant has applied for and been granted a judgment in default.  The (slightly) good news is that even if you send your defence today it will be shown as being received tomorrow.

I have checked this morning and they have not enter a judgement by default yet. I guess it's good news? 

I wasn't able to post the full Defence in my previous post (starting with "In the County Court") as provided in the link because I somehow have a limit on how many words I can post in a single post. It didn't allowed me to post the full length of my Defence. If not my Defence is based on the template with all the points up to point 27 and with the Statement Of Truth at the end.

Unless I am missing something... about my defence? 

Is that OK?

I can also post it here in 2 to 3 posts if necessary? Should I do that? 

Coupon-mad

No, we don't need to see the Template Defence.

Le_Kirk

Yanness said:

Le_Kirk said:

That still looks like a witness statement.  Read some other defences that posters have based on the defence template.  Have a look at your status page on MCOL and see if the claimant has applied for and been granted a judgment in default.  The (slightly) good news is that even if you send your defence today it will be shown as being received tomorrow.

I have checked this morning and they have not enter a judgement by default yet. I guess it's good news? 

I wasn't able to post the full Defence in my previous post (starting with "In the County Court") as provided in the link because I somehow have a limit on how many words I can post in s single post. It didn't allowed me to post the full length of my Defence. If not my Defence is based on the template with all the points up to point 27 and with the Statement Of Truth at the end.

Yep, good news that no judgment. Just adjust/edit paragraphs 2 & 3 from the template to fit your situation but keep it to short, punchy, technical/legal arguments and save the narrative for the WS.  Then just post here for critique ONLY the paragraphs you have edited (and any others you need to add but avoid War & Peace).  When your defence has been critiqued and you are satisfied with it (later today or early tomorrow), just add the rest of the template and send it by e-mail as per the instructions in the NEWBIE sticky or the template defence thread.

Coupon-mad

And make sure you get an auto-reply email.

1505grandad

"...... this is a stipulation of the IPC code of practice part E schedule 1 and is believed by the defendant to be an example of predatory tactics as stipulated in the IPC code of conduct 14.1."

I believe the ppc are BPA AoS members.

Yanness

Hopefully this one is better.

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock to me. 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 and driver was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant was driving in the area and was looking for a place to stop to feed his daughter and eat something with his family.

The site contains no appropriate entrance signage that would have been seen adequately by the driver from the highway such as the Defendant had no ability to know about any conditions beforehand for the Pay and Display parking before getting recorded by their camera.

When entering the car park there is no way to turn around, if you decided not to park at the location afterward. Unfortunately, you have to enter into the car park and then turn around and leave. But by entering, you are already recorded by their camera and deemed supposedly in a contract.

The location has inadequate signs which does not constitute a contract by any means. The small and short description, which is not visible from the highway, is merely an "invitations to treat" and could only be deemed to be accepted as a contract when you feed or pay into the meter.
This supports a legal principle in that when there is an unsigned agreement and an onerous clause then this clause must be bought to the attention of the trader. Indeed, this approach is inserted into the BPA Code of Practice where 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory. The defendant believes that the signs used by the claimant do not clearly mention the ‘onerous’ clause of the charge and contractual terms in accordance with this trite of law because it is hidden in smaller print underneath far larger lettering used to state that “parking is for valid permit holders”.

No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by the defendant as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the terms by which they would later be bound due to inadequate grace period and signage.

Therefore, no contract was formed due to the failure to provide adequate signage.

Coupon-mad

Get rid of all this, and just get the whole defence signed, dated and emailed to the CCBC first thing on Tuesday:

"When entering the car park there is no way to turn around, if you decided not to park at the location afterward. Unfortunately, you have to enter into the car park and then turn around and leave. But by entering, you are already recorded by their camera and deemed supposedly in a contract.

The location has inadequate signs which does not constitute a contract by any means. The small and short description, which is not visible from the highway, is merely an "invitations to treat" and could only be deemed to be accepted as a contract when you feed or pay into the meter. 
This supports a legal principle in that when there is an unsigned agreement and an onerous clause then this clause must be bought to the attention of the trader. Indeed, this approach is inserted into the BPA Code of Practice where 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory. The defendant believes that the signs used by the claimant do not clearly mention the ‘onerous’ clause of the charge and contractual terms in accordance with this trite of law because it is hidden in smaller print underneath far larger lettering used to state that “parking is for valid permit holders”.

Yanness

Thank you Coupon-mad.
I'm getting this printed right now. 

Cheers. 

Coupon-mad

No need to print it.

Just attach as a PDF with a photo of your signature or electronic signature & date.  Don't email it till 9am.