Gladstone Court Claim - help with defence needed

svgoals

Coupon-mad said:

registration is handled by the football facility, at the point i tap my number plate into the touch screen there is no signage or advice about how the car i'm registering should be parked. That's all handled by goals we don't interact with anything to do with the car park, signs, machines etc...

We just got told one day, now the car park is managed you need to register your car, which i started to do.

Sounds fine - needs to be in your defence para 3 but of course changed to 'The Defendant did this/that' not "I".

Thankyou, i'll add it in...

Would you advise chopping about para 4,5 and 6 (realize the numbering is currently out) to be a little more succinct or is the detail in there largely fine. I guess the point i am trying to get across is that this car park have created a rule, which is poorly displayed,  that in some cases is impossible to follow, in other cases very hard to follow. They are setting drivers up to fail basically and i wanted to get that across.. They must just walk up and down ticketing every other car.

Or maybe that won't necessarily help my personal case?  

svgoals

Nearly hitting deadline for submission and I've tried to take on board advice given for a further stab.... constructive criticism welcomed.

3. The defendants car was parked in the car park owned by South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, to play at the ‘Goals’ football leisure league. Car parking is free for all goals users and the defendants car was registered with the venue that evening. Registration of cars for Goals users is handled by the Goals facility itself on a touch screen. At the point at which the venues customers enter the cars number plate into the touch screen there is no signage or advice about how the car being registering should be parked. The registration process is all handled by Goals, customers don't interact with anything to do with the car park, signs or machines.

4. The section of the carpark which the defendants car was parked in, is a gravel car park with very poorly defined parking spaces. The defendant was issued a ticket for ‘parking outside of a marked bay’ The defendants car was parked as best as possible in an inadequately and vaguely marked bay. The reason the defendants car had to be parked as it was is because the property owners own mini buses do not fit inside the bays, which subsequently leads to all cars following on from this having to park accordingly potentially astride a bay. To issue a ticket for this reason in this manner would appear to be a gross abuse of power. 

5. In addition to these mitigating circumstances the signage was poorly lit, and the advice that cars need to be ‘wholly parked within a marked bay’ ambiguous at best and not displayed at all at the goals number plate registration screen. The defendant has parked in this car park nearly every week for a number of years, to play at ‘Goals’ and on a number of occasion will have had to park with the car in some capacity outside the perimeter of the marked bay, simply due to its size with either the front or rear overhanging and has not been issued with a ticket. This leads to the clear conclusion that the signage is both unclear and open to random interpretation when it suits by the parking company, which is deplorable behavior.    

6. This car park is always extremely busy at this time in the evening and there are many instances in the car park where it is not at all clear where the divides are from one bay to another, making it in most cases difficult and in other cases impossible to follow the advice to park wholly inside a marked bay.   

Coupon-mad

Needs an English spellcheck before you finalise and sign it (not a US one). 'behavior' = Americanism.  Should be behaviour.

In 4 you have 'carpark' which should not be one word.

Won't be picked up by spellcheck - and I know it's a pedantic point but this is a defence and a pedantic Judge will read it - but you also have lots of apostrophes missing, lots of 'the defendants car' that need an apostrophe before the 's' and 'the venues' needs one too, again before the s.

Similarly but slightly different: 'the property owners' is plural already so it needs an ownership apostrophe after the s.

What has not parking within a bay got to do with it?  Can you remind us, are there several PCNs within this claim, some for not parking within a bay and some for not inputting a VRM?

To 4 (assuming at least one PCN is about not inputting a VRM?) I would add:

Therefore there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant, because the burden of registering car number-plates on the system inside the venue does not fall upon the driver.  The charge arose not due to any conduct or omission of the driver but due to a lack of communication about the change and a failure of the opaque and unworkable system dreamt up by the Claimant and foisted upon the staff at the centre.  Inputting the VRM is not within the control of any driver at this location; the convoluted system depends upon third party staff and represents a 'concealed pitfall or trap' (Supreme Court's phrase from the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis, when discussing the sort of parking system which would not have been fair to drivers).

svgoals

Hi @Coupon-mad. 

Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to tidy up the grammar.

The PCN was for parking outside a marked bay only I mention the part about the sign in of the car to highlight the fact I'm not using any machines under control by the parking company, and therefore not having to read any of their signage about how I should be parking, and indeed they don't display signage next to the sign in machine in the facility. 

My main gripe here is the fact that the car park is poorly marked. and I've got numerous photos of this, and also the colleges own minibuses park all over the place outside of marked spaces, so its then impossible for subsequent car park users to line up in a spaces.. and then of course the parking warden wander along rubbing their hands together. Its almost the perfect set up for them. Create a rule that's very hard to follow and then police it as rigorously as possible.   
 

Le_Kirk

What have you put in paragraph #2?  What does the POC say on the claim form?  If it is "parking outside of a marked bay" then you leave in all your words abut that but if it is something else you need to tailor your defence to suit what the claimant is claiming.

svgoals

Le_Kirk said:

What have you put in paragraph #2?  What does the POC say on the claim form?  If it is "parking outside of a marked bay" then you leave in all your words abut that but if it is something else you need to tailor your defence to suit what the claimant is claiming.

The claimant is claiming 'parking outside of a marked bay'.

So should i remove the references to registering the car as its of little relevance to the main defence?

Paragraph 2 i simply state:

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

Le_Kirk

Then your main (and only) defence against the POC is that there were no marked bays, you will provide evidence at WS stage.

svgoals

Defense (thanks for the advice) has been submitted and acknowledged and i have (as predicted) received notification from Gladstones that they wish to proceed but would like to mediate blah bah blah, which i will ignore. 

My question. At this stage should i wait for CCBC to send me the questionnaire or am i better off just downloading it from the link given and just getting on with it and sending it back?  

KeithP

svgoals said:

My question. At this stage should i wait for CCBC to send me the questionnaire or am i better off just downloading it from the link given and just getting on with it and sending it back?  

Wait at least until you see that the CCBC has sent a DQ to you. That will show on your MCOL Claim History.

We have heard of the CCBC returning an early filed DQ - not sure why though.

svgoals

KeithP said:

svgoals said:

My question. At this stage should i wait for CCBC to send me the questionnaire or am i better off just downloading it from the link given and just getting on with it and sending it back?  

Wait at least until you see that the CCBC has sent a DQ to you. That will show on your MCOL Claim History.

We have heard of the CCBC returning an early filed DQ - not sure why though.

Typically how long does that usually take? (Defence submitted on wednesday)