Not the driver or keeper, driver now living abroad

KeithP

Slainte1 said:

The rest is as per the template defence except that at para 12 I have inserted defendant rather than driver.

That is the wrong thing to do.

The word 'driver' should remain in para 12.

The defendant was never there, so clearly there is no need to say he didn't see the signs or agree the wording on them.

What matters is that It was the driver that saw, or did not see, the signs on the day and therefore didn't agree a parking charge.

Coupon-mad

Remove repetition of the phrase 'in question'.

Slainte1

KeithP said:

Slainte1 said:

The rest is as per the template defence except that at para 12 I have inserted defendant rather than driver.

That is the wrong thing to do.

The word 'driver' should remain in para 12.

The defendant was never there, so clearly there is no need to say he didn't see the signs or agree the wording on them.

What matters is that It was the driver that saw, or did not see, the signs on the day and therefore didn't agree a parking charge.

But presumably I can’t speak for the driver. Wouldn’t that be hearsay. Wasn’t sure if the rest I could say as hearsay. Such as ‘it is understood that…’
 Do I wait to present a witness statement from him in court or do I say ‘the driver has advised me that ….’ And present the recent photos in court. 

Or should I state the fact that ‘the defendant’s photos show that… ‘ 

Le_Kirk

Slainte1 said:

The rest is as per the template defence except that at para 12 I have inserted defendant rather than driver. I have evidence that I was at work that day and drove my own car with witnesses present
I would welcome any feedback.  Thanks

Unwise to change anything in the template defence, it is written that way for a reason!

Coupon-mad

Slainte1 said:

KeithP said:

Slainte1 said:

The rest is as per the template defence except that at para 12 I have inserted defendant rather than driver.

That is the wrong thing to do.

The word 'driver' should remain in para 12.

The defendant was never there, so clearly there is no need to say he didn't see the signs or agree the wording on them.

What matters is that It was the driver that saw, or did not see, the signs on the day and therefore didn't agree a parking charge.

But presumably I can’t speak for the driver. Wouldn’t that be hearsay. Wasn’t sure if the rest I could say as hearsay. Such as ‘it is understood that…’
 Do I wait to present a witness statement from him in court or do I say ‘the driver has advised me that ….’ And present the recent photos in court. 

Or should I state the fact that ‘the defendant’s photos show that… ‘ 

Do all of those things.

Slainte1

Can anyone advise on whether it would serve any purpose or not to name the driver to the claimant and state they live in Thailand. Obviously in hindsight I should have done this earlier, but thinking of demonstrating that I behaved reasonably to reduce court costs. Or should it just be stated in the defence statement which I’m currently writing/rewriting 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

It is too late to name the driver.  The keeper should have done that last year and the case would have collapsed.  You'd have got no claim. Too late now.

But your defence does need to say that you were not driving and the driver lives in Thailand.  No evidence has been provided of any breach of terms or what those terms were, and the Defendant (registered keeper) denies liability.

Slainte1

  No evidence has been provided of any breach of terms or what those terms were, and the Defendant (registered keeper) denies liability.

Are you saying that I should say ‘there’s no evidence of breach of terms’ or are you saying I’ve provided no evidence of breach of terms in this discussion.  I’m still waiting for the SAR.  They asked me for proof of identity today, duly sent   Was tempted to say not the driver but will put it in my defence statement. I’ve taken photos of the car park in the dark and there’s no lighting. Signs are barely visible let alone readable from the entrance 
thanks 

Coupon-mad

Are you saying that I should say ‘there’s no evidence of breach of terms’

Yes.  The words I wrote are for your defence paragraph 3.

Slainte1

Here is the final Draft of my defence.  Photos I have taken recently on site demonstrate that the parking charge notice is not visible from the highway, that a previously more prominent notice is now absent and that an ANPR camera has recently been fitted but is neither prominent or labeled.  The car park signage is not lit at night.

In Para 8 of the template defence I have corrected the statement that excessive charges ARE banned into 'is in the process of being'

Comments are welcomed as my deadline is Monday.  I can post photos if needed

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.      The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was 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.

2.      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 of the vehicle, but was not the driver and was not the keeper of the vehicle. The driver and keeper of the vehicle now resides in Thailand. The defendant was at work on a site visit with witnesses, on the day in question.

3. It is understood by the Defendant that on the day on which this parking charge arose, the driver and their passenger had visited the car park.

3.1 They were unaware upon entering that this was a chargeable carpark. However when they became aware, due to the lack of change for the pay and display machine, the driver and passenger undertook to find change from a nearby retail establishment. It is also understood that they returned as quickly as is reasonable and left the car park

3.2 The driver has advised the Defendant that they were unaware of signs advising of parking charges, and unaware of any ANPR or CCTV cameras.

3.3 No evidence has been provided by the Claimant, the landowner or their representatives, which detail any breach of terms or what those terms were. Nor has any evidence been provided of signage or ANPR cameras present at the time of incident, no timeline of events, nor evidence to determine the identity of the driver.

3.4 The Defendant believes that the Claimant was not contracted to collect parking fees at this location, but rather a company called Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd