help needed to decide next steps please!

Carlingcup

Not_A_Hope said:

KeithP wrote

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website

I wrote

It is fine to ‘upload’ your defence paragraphs here for comment before combining them with the rest of the template and emailing to CCBC.

You should not be using MCOL to send you defence so that there is not a limit on the number of characters allowed. The action is to amend paras 2 and 3 to set the circumstances in your case (or however many paras you need) and insert into the rest of the template and email.

Hi, I'm not using MCOL< I have only uploaded on her for some guidance and It would only allow me a certain number of characters.

Not_A_Hope

Aah. Your intention confused me. You didn’t need to attach 6, 7, 29 and the statement of truth. We don’t need to review that.

You appear to have missed off one if the paragraphs that Coupon_mad suggested. I would recommend you include it. 

Umkomaas

Carlingcup said:

Not_A_Hope said:

KeithP wrote

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website

I wrote

It is fine to ‘upload’ your defence paragraphs here for comment before combining them with the rest of the template and emailing to CCBC.

You should not be using MCOL to send you defence so that there is not a limit on the number of characters allowed. The action is to amend paras 2 and 3 to set the circumstances in your case (or however many paras you need) and insert into the rest of the template and email.

Hi, I'm not using MCOL< I have only uploaded on her for some guidance and It would only allow me a certain number of characters.

Split it up over a series of separate posts. 

Carlingcup

Hi, hopefully I have done this right now and should I omit para 2 where I state I am the driver?

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. 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 was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3.  The Defendant was dropping off a packet at the on-site Post Office, conduct which is unloading activity.  This specific issue has been tested in Local Authority PCN 'key cases' where barrister Parking Adjudicators have determined that carrying a package to an adjacent Post Office is unloading, not parking.

4.  Therefore, it is the Defendant's position that stopping in the 'drop off' area was perfectly correct activity at this multi-store retail park and breached no parking contract, not that any such onerous terms were sufficiently brought to the Defendant's attention at the drop off point, which lacked clear signage either to define 'drop off' or to create an agreement to pay £100.

5.  The existence of the required contractual 'meeting of minds' is denied and there was no consideration flowing from the Claimant because it seems no 'drop off' (in the sense of unloading) was on offer.

6.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says at  S.69. (1) “If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.”  This is an objective statement. It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focusses on difference. If the trader who drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion.

Not_A_Hope

That looks fine to me. You probably have already told the PPC who was driving in your appeal and you are not using POFA to defend this.

Confirming you were the driver is the right thing to do as you will be able to tell a judge exactly what happened and describe the confusing / appalling signage. Have you taken photos of the area as evidence for your WS?

Carlingcup

Not_A_Hope said:

That looks fine to me. You probably have already told the PPC who was driving in your appeal and you are not using POFA to defend this.

Confirming you were the driver is the right thing to do as you will be able to tell a judge exactly what happened and describe the confusing / appalling signage. Have you taken photos of the area as evidence for your WS?

Thank you 😊I can't remember if I've ever confirmed I was the driver as it was so long ago nor have I taken any photos yet as I believe the car park in question is now a pay-to-park and the signage may well have changed but I will check this weekend.

Coupon-mad

Better but you also missed my edited small addition to para 5.

Carlingcup

Coupon-mad said:

Better but you also missed my edited small addition to para 5.

Thank you... and it's amended;
The existence of the required contractual 'meeting of minds' is denied and there was no consideration flowing from the Claimant because it seems no 'drop off' (in the sense of unloading) was on offer even though this is what the area appears to be for.

Not_A_Hope

nor have I taken any photos yet as I believe the car park in question is now a pay-to-park 

Your main argument will be loading / unloading is not parking and the ambiguity of any signage. 

Strictly speaking the PPC have to prove their case to the satisfaction of a judge. They should provide photos of the signage at the time in their witness statement which you can review and critique against the code of practice in force at the time. Sometimes they provide ‘stock’ photos of a sign on a desk which you could challenge.

Will the car park in question be on Google Streetview which has a historical function?

If you provide the name of the car park it may have come up on here before with some useful evidence!

Carlingcup

nor have I taken any photos yet as I believe the car park in question is now a pay-to-park 

Your main argument will be loading / unloading is not parking and the ambiguity of any signage. 

Strictly speaking the PPC have to prove their case to the satisfaction of a judge. They should provide photos of the signage at the time in their witness statement which you can review and critique against the code of practice in force at the time. Sometimes they provide ‘stock’ photos of a sign on a desk which you could challenge.

Will the car park in question be on Google Streetview which has a historical function?

If you provide the name of the car park it may have come up on here before with some useful evidence!

The car par is the Pavillion Shopping Centre, St Peters Square, Thornaby TS17 9EX. I have found a picture from June 2018 on google streetview and there is a UKPC no unauthorised parking sign along with a purple sign directly underneath saying "drop off point no waiting.