County Court claim - Minster Baywatch

Le_Kirk

Your paragraph 6 rather tells the judge that you did see some signs and a PDT.  If you are saying you saw these on a subsequent visit then you checked on foot, I would make it abundantly clear.  Isn't para 5 repeating para 3?

Coupon-mad

The defendant believes that the Claimant, Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a contract offered by them, that was prominently displayed so that it was bound to be seen, as well as a chain of authority from the landowner allowing Minster Baywatch to sue in their own name despite the disclosed principal on the solitary sign.

SJRRJS

Le_Kirk said:

Your paragraph 6 rather tells the judge that you did see some signs and a PDT.  If you are saying you saw these on a subsequent visit then you checked on foot, I would make it abundantly clear.  Isn't para 5 repeating para 3?

Yes you are right! Amended.

How about this:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant travelled to Crickley Hill to stop for a walk on a journey home. The defendant did not see any signs relating to parking charges on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or where they parked (near the car park entrance).

4. The defendant has since returned to Crickley Hill and has noted that there is one small sign relating to parking charges on the road into Crickley Hill, presumably missed as they were concentrating on driving over the adjacent cattle grid. The only other sign relating to car parking on the road in, is a sign for disabled parking, with no mention of parking charges.

5. On the defendant’s return visit, they noted that further into the car park there are some small signs that mention parking charges, and one ticket machine towards the back of the car park. The defendant parked at the front of the car park, near the entrance on a busy Sunday afternoon in May. The signs were not clearly visible, (especially with other vehicles of varying sizes and people around), and the route walked did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine. The defendant contends that the parking charges were not clearly displayed on the way into Crickley Hill, nor at the car park entrance where they parked their car, or they would have paid the £2 charge.

6. Again, upon the return visit to the site, the defendant noted that the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (Agent), as shown on the signage at the site. At no point has the defendant had any contact from or with BW Parking Solutions. The defendant believes that the Claimant, Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a contract offered by them, that was prominently displayed so that it was bound to be seen, as well as a chain of authority from the landowner allowing Minster Baywatch to sue in their own name despite the disclosed principal on the solitary sign.

7. The facts in this defence…

Coupon-mad

Looks OK to me.

SJRRJS

Thanks for all the help so far! I am submitting it now

Umkomaas

SJRRJS said:

Thanks for all the help so far! I am submitting it now

It's not recommended to submit outside of working hours, and definitely not on a Saturday evening. 

You must keep a close eye on receiving an auto response to confirm receipt. If you don't get one on Monday (the CCBC's next day in the office), resubmit between 9am and 4pm. You must get that auto response confirmation. 

There are issues using Gmail email addresses, and possibly Hotmail. Use of an alternative is really essential. 

SJRRJS

Umkomaas said:

SJRRJS said:

Thanks for all the help so far! I am submitting it now

It's not recommended to submit outside of working hours, and definitely not on a Saturday evening. 

You must keep a close eye on receiving an auto response to confirm receipt. If you don't get one on Monday (the CCBC's next day in the office), resubmit between 9am and 4pm. You must get that auto response confirmation. 

There are issues using Gmail email addresses, and possibly Hotmail. Use of an alternative is really essential. 

I'd already sent before your post, but luckily I did get an auto-response from both CCBC and Gladstones. (Used an Outlook email address). 

Gladstones have already sent me their Directions Questionnaire too (titled DUMMYDUMMY.pdf), saying they intend to proceed with the claim. I gather I need to wait for the court to send me a Questionnaire of my own?

Fruitcake

Either wait for one from the court or download one and use that.
Like as not the one you have been sent has been part filled in with things to your detriment and to their advantage.

Coupon-mad

This stage is covered by the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread, first post.

SJRRJS

I have a court date at my local County Court in May. Getting a bit nervous about this now! 

Looks like they have until the end of January to submit their documents for the hearing, and I have until the second week of Feb.

Documents-wise am I correct in thinking that I need to re-submit my defence as well as a witness statement?