County Court Claim received not sure on defence strategy - I beat the system!

Coupon-mad

I think going straight into the details on the sign makes it sound like she saw and read it.  Better to move that down to be para 4, then have a para 3 introducing the idea that no signage was seen because it is placed (where? away from the grass area where all students park? Hidden by trees?).

Then when she talks about the words on the sign in para 4 she should say she only discovered it after the PCN was issued.

Actually, I've just realised that your numbering isn't right anyway because the Template Defence already has a para 1 and 2 so your facts start at 3 when you slot it into the template.

Le_Kirk

What about "loading/unloading is not parking" although she was probably pushing it at 30 minutes and having stopped for a coffee!

Coupon-mad

Yep, it also crossed my mind that can be a defence too (authority: Jopson v Homeguard) and no doubt the timings between first and last photo are only a few minutes.

However that won't work if the D has already told the PPC in any dispute or earlier contact, that she was 'having a coffee' and/or was there half an hour. 

alldoors

Just to recap on this one. Driver rec'd a PCN for parking in an area where no parking or stopping was permitted whatsoever. She received 4 letters/invoices asking for £150 (original was £80) which were ignored. Have completed the AOS. Have requested SAR. No communication whatsoever with DCB Legal from defendent. Below is another attempt at a Defence which I have 3 weeks to reply to the Court. Have been to the site to look and now have a proper photo of the sign, video and photos of the area. The sign states "No waiting or parking on roads, pavements and verges at any time" and is at the end of a patch of grass away from any road, then at the very botom of the sign says "This car park is private property......."! There is no car park! Anyway, here is my 4th attempt:-

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

3.     a) The Defendant does not agree with the particulars of the claim of “contractual breach” or “failure to comply with terms and conditions”. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions. The Defendant did not see a sign when parking their vehicle.

            b) The Defendant has revisited the location to look for “the sign”. The “contractual terms and conditions” on the sign are misleading with wording that dresses up the charge as a ‘contractual’ fee, which it is not. One cannot contract to be allowed to do something the sign states as “not permitted”. The elements of a contractual agreement/offer did not exist. This echoes the judgement of DJ Glen in PCMUK v Bull.

c)The sign indicates that there is an absolute prohibition against parking on a road, pavement or verge at any time, for any period. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway, pavement or verge. If you do, then we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass. This sign is not illuminated and it is also at a distance from where the vehicle was parked.

Coupon-mad

That's good but (assuming no previous appeal went in telling them she was having a coffee/was there half an hour)  you haven't yet included what I suggested above.

alldoors

Coupon-mad said:

That's good but (assuming no previous appeal went in telling them she was having a coffee/was there half an hour)  you haven't yet included what I suggested above.

Hi Coupon-mad. Thanks for your reply. We have had no communication with the claimant other than asking for the SAR. She didnt appeal because I told her it was an invoice and to just ignore it. There is no to and from time on the Court Claim. Just the time they discovered the car parked there (presumably). When you say not included what you suggested above, do you mean the your reference to "Jopson v Homeguard"?

Trainerman

alldoors said:

 also attached a copy of the sign that was present on parking.
Not sure if I should mention who the Uni are just in case.  This was not a car park so it's more like trespass I suppose.

Is it just me? There is surely a defence that the sign does not make sense, therefore no contract. It actually says that you get a ticket for not 'complying with a contravention'. To me  that says ticket if you DON'T make a 'contravention

Fruitcake

The transcript for the Jopson vs Homeguard is available online. Have a look at the judge's comments about paragraphs 19 and 20 where the judge stated that loading/unloading is not parking.
Definitely include it.

Le_Kirk

I hope they don't teach English at that Uni; you cannot comply with a contravention!  You can of course contravene some made-up rule/law but the sign does not say that.  I expect (hope) a judge will throw it out.

alldoors

Le_Kirk said:

I hope they don't teach English at that Uni; you cannot comply with a contravention!  You can of course contravene some made-up rule/law but the sign does not say that.  I expect (hope) a judge will throw it out.

Luckily the boyfriend did a Maths degree.