Help with County Court Claim Defence if possible? Northwest Parking/DCBL

Tommytheslug

Ok, thanks KeithP, so at risk of sounding a bit thick, do I change the template defence to state that I wasnt the driver (even though I was?) I struggle a bit with legal wording so forgive my questions. 

With regards to the byelaw, is there a specific way I can reference this in regard to the claim, ie, is there a way to use the byelaws themselves as a point of defence?

Also, i read this on another site:
"In the case of ParkingEye Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguishes it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (e.g. £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty."

is this what point 11 and 12 in the template defense is referring to?

Thanks again for your help, im reading through all the newby posts and slowly getting my head around things!

Coupon-mad

No, of course you don't lie in a defence - eek!

You need to search & read some more defences where people do not state who was driving and cite lack of 'keeper liability' among other issues.


"...is this what point 11 and 12 in the template defense is referring to?"
No.  Cargius is well out of date - years old - and I'm amazed that anyone is even stumbling across it. It wasn't heard on appeal and is a 'nothing' case.

11 and 12 of the Template Defence are nothing to do with Cargius or any other case.  That section is clearly talking about the false added £70.

Tommytheslug

Ok Brilliant, cheers for clearing that up. 

So if I know I was driving, I cant then go down the defense route of not providing the drivers details? Im not lying, Im just declining to provide the information, and technically, there could have been one of a number of people driving that day as my car is a utility vehicle and is used regularly by others. 

OR, do I just 'fess up and explain that due to my MiL's disability I was held up assisting her and late leaving the car park?

Ive been looking at other cases rearding Hartlepool Marina and I came across this defence from 2019, which seems like it could form my defence, rather than the issues I had with Mother in law. The statements all seem like they could apply to me in this case? It was successful in court following an 11th hr offer to settle.

"The Defendant denies any debt to the Claimant for the following reasons

1. The Defendant confirms that (s)he was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned on DATE.

2. The Defendant cannot confirm that (s)he was the driver at the time of the supposed event, as the vehicle has multiple drivers including the Defendant's partner and other family members, all of which have access to the vehicle and drive it on regular occasions.

3. The alleged location is covered by Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws
It is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Claimant has never had any right to recover payment from the Defendant as the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Even if the location were relevant land, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of POFA in a number of respects.

4. Notwithstanding the above comment, the Claimant has not stated that it relies on the Keeper provisions of POFA 2012, and therefore the incorrect presumption that the keeper is the driver.

5. The Claimant is not the land-owner and does not have the capacity to take legal action on its own behalf unless it has occupational rights over the land in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice Para B 1.1

6. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's signs at the location cannot form any contract with the driver.
They are inadequate and in breach of its Code of Practice Part E Schedule 1
There are no entrance signs, and the signs that are present are few in number with small and illegible text.
The Supreme Court, ParkingEye v Beavis, has made clear that, in order to recover a penalty, signs must be clear and the parking operator must be in compliance with its Code of Practice. The Claimant fails in both respects. "

Tommytheslug

Also, at this stage is it worth requesting a SAR still? if so I will do this now. Cheers.

Coupon-mad

Nope, I'd go for this (you should have told us this at first because disabled people are legally allowed a 'reasonable adjustment' of more time).  It's a compelling legal point if you argue it well (Judges are generally clueless about disability rights so you have to be the 'expert' after research and lead on the EA 2010 at the hearing).

You can search and find an Equality Act more time defence:

OR, do I just 'fess up and explain that due to my MiL's disability I was held up assisting her and late leaving the car park?

Tommytheslug

Thanks for that, please see my first defense draft (my first post on this thread)

3. The defendant was visiting Hartlepool Marina to see family members, who have their boat moored there. The purpose of the visit was to help them pack up their belongings and return home, due to the failing health of the defendant’s Mother in law. The lady in question suffers from severe COPD among other issues. Due to the age and failing health of the defendants family member, the defendant was required to aid them in bringing their luggage from the boat to the car, before providing assistance with the substantial walk between the boat and the car park area to their Mother in Law. This required more than one trip, and the distance between the two required frequent rest stops due to her breathing difficulties, which therefore meant the whole exercise took longer than anticipated. 

Ill look up the "Equality Act more time" now. Cheers

KeithP

Tommytheslug said:

3. The defendant was visiting Hartlepool Marina to see family members, who have their boat moored there. The purpose of the visit was to help them pack up their belongings and return home, due to the failing health of the defendant’s Mother in law. The lady in question suffers from severe COPD among other issues. Due to the age and failing health of the defendants family member, the defendant was required to aid them in bringing their luggage from the boat to the car, before providing assistance with the substantial walk between the boat and the car park area to their Mother in Law. This required more than one trip, and the distance between the two required frequent rest stops due to her breathing difficulties, which therefore meant the whole exercise took longer than anticipated. 

How about re-wording that to...
3. The driver was visiting Hartlepool Marina to see family members, who have their boat moored there. The purpose of the visit was to help them pack up their belongings and return home, due to the failing health of the driver's Mother in law. The lady in question suffers from severe COPD among other issues. Due to the age and failing health of the driver's family member, the driver was required to aid them in bringing their luggage from the boat to the car, before providing assistance with the substantial walk between the boat and the car park area to their Mother in Law. This required more than one trip, and the distance between the two required frequent rest stops due to her breathing difficulties, which therefore meant the whole exercise took longer than anticipated. 

Oh... and there is no letter 's' in the word 'defence'.   

Coupon-mad

Plus an Equality Act paragraph.  I recall writing one in 2022 about the right to more time, so a forum search will find it.