Slightly unusual - Anglia Trains - PCN - County Court

chap_in_leeds

IN THE COUNTY COURT                                                            Claim No.: NUMBER

 

 

Between

 

National Carparks Limited

(Claimant)

 

and

 

NAME

(Defendant)

 

_________________

 

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. Liability is therefore denied.

2.     The Defendant is a *** professional role **** and, as a consequence of the covid pandemic and the widely known difficulties faced by the National Health Service, has been wholly occupied with his professional life over the last three years and apologises to the Court for the delay in his response.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief.

4.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

5.     The Defendant has not received any Particulars of Claim (POC) and does not have access to any records at the Defendant’s legal representative, BW Legal. He cannot therefore see any contract nor any evidence in support of the claim.

6.     The Defendant has, however, received threatening and distressing letters from BW Legal indicating that a County Court Judgement would be entered against him for the sum of £270 and with further threats of additional legal costs being added to the balance.

7.     The Defendant acknowledges that the court process is outside of his usual life experience and he cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource.

8.     Despite the lack of POC the Defendant believes that the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.

9.     This Claimant pursues a hugely disproportionate sum despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified administration costs ‘appear to be penal’.

10.  This finding is underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding ‘debt recovery costs’ were ‘extorting money’. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (‘DLUHC’) published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

11.  Adding charges, however defined, on to a parking charge is now banned. In a section called ‘Escalation of costs’ the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”

12.  Indeed, the Code’s Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: “Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

13.  The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were ‘parking firms posing as motorists’. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.

14.  This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the (already high) parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

15.  The driver cannot know whether he agreed to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

16.  Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that ‘recovery’ fees were ‘designed to extort money’. A clear steer for the Courts.

17.  This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made. Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds’ emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. Those learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.

 

POFA and CRA breaches

18.  Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’) the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated ‘relevant contract/relevant obligation’). If seeking keeper/hirer liability, and this is unclear due to the lack of POC, the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance and liability transferred.

19.  Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA’). The CRA introduced new requirements for ‘prominence’ of both contract terms and ‘consumer notices’. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

20.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. In the case of a ‘PCN’, this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant advances that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith.

 

 

 

Conclusion

21.  The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court’s time and that of the Defendant.

22.  With the DLUHC’s ban on the false ‘costs’ there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

 

Statement of Truth

23.  I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

24.  Defendant’s signature:

25.  Date:

 

Fruitcake

That looks nothing like the template with just paragraphs 2 and 3 adapted. I can't see any mention of non relevant land nor byelaws, nor non-compliant NTK, nor that the keeper cannot be held liable.

Get rid of the waffle and put in facts. 
Don't mention a delay in response. That just tells the court you failed to follow the CPR and the claimant could easily obtain a default judgement from that admission alone.


If NCP do not know the identity of the driver (and the only way they can know is if someone was daft enough to tell them like you have been trying to do since you started this thread), then the keeper can be liable in certain circumstances.


1) The NTK must have been received by the keeper within timescales specified within the PoFA 
2) The place where the alleged event occurred must be relevant land as defined by the PoFA 2012.
3) The NTK must have specific wording quoted from the PoFA.

1) is irrelevant in your case.

So, use the template defence exactly as it appears in the defence template in the sticky Announcements at the top of the forum.

Amend paragraphs 2 and 3 of that template, and only paras 2 and 3.

Para 2 should read something like, It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper at the time of the alleged event.

Para 3 should state that the claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
The location of the alleged event is a railway asset covered by railway byelaws. This is not relevant land as specified in the PoFA and therefore the registered keeper (the defendant) cannot be held liable. In addition, an alleged breach of parking terms of an unregulated private parking company is not a railway byelaws offence.
The Notice to Keeper (NTK) did not contain the necessary wording of the PoFA warning that the keeper can be held liable if the driver's identity is not known. Since the NTK is not compliant with the strict requirements of the PoFA, the registered keeper (the defendant) cannot be held liable for the parking charge notice.



Put that in your own words and show it to us before you send it if you have time.

Look at the PoFA (there is a link to it in the NEWBIES, or use a search engine of your choice to find the Act)

Refer to and quote the paragraph and sub paragraph number/wording of the part that defines relevant and non relevant land. 

Do the same for the parts of the PoFA where a warning must be given to the driver that the keeper can be held liable. 

Be as brief as possible with your quotes. You don't need to quote six sub-sections if only one refers to a warning that the keeper can be held liable  etcetera.

There is nothing in the slightest unusual about your case.

Grizebeck

As above full of non relevant stuff
Ive already advised on what to use

chap_in_leeds

Thank you very much for your help. I have posted below a version much closer to the template. I edited the previous version because I do not have the POC so know very little. 

I did not know about the railway issue and think I have covered that now, as you suggest. 

Thank you again.

chap_in_leeds

IN THE COUNTY COURT                                                            Claim No.: Number

 

 

Between

 

National Carparks Limited

(Claimant)

 

and

 

NAME

(Defendant)

 

_________________

 

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. Liability is therefore denied.

2.          The Defendant is a ***professional role***** and, as a consequence of the covid pandemic and the widely known difficulties faced by the National Health Service, has been wholly occupied with his professional life over the last three years and apologises to the Court for the delay in his response.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3.          It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

4.          The Claimant as failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The location of the alleged event is a railway asset covered by railway byelaws. This is not relevant land as specified in the Schedule 3 of PoFA (Para 3 (1)) and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable. In addition, an alleged breach of parking terms of an unregulated private parking company is not a railway byelaws offence.

5.          The Notice to Keeper (NTK) did not follow the prescribed wording of the PoFA warning that the keeper can be held liable if the driver's identity is not known, reference to Schedule 4 of PoFA, Para 8 and 9. Since the NTK is not compliant with the strict requirements of the PoFA, the defendant cannot be held liable for the parking charge notice.

6.          Furthermore, the Defendant has not received any Particulars of Claim (POC) and does not have access to any records at the Defendant’s legal representative, BW Legal. He cannot therefore see any contract nor any evidence in support of the claim.

7.          The Defendant has, however, received threating and distressing letters from BW Legal indicating that a County Court Judgement would be entered against him for the sum of £270 and with further threats of additional legal costs being added to the balance.

8.          The Defendant acknowledges that the court process is outside of his usual life experience and he cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource.

9.          Despite the lack of POC the Defendant believes that the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.

10.       This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

11.       This finding is underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

12.       Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

13.       The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

14.       The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.  

15.       This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the (already high) parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

16.       The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event. 

17.       Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice.  The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'.  A clear steer for the Courts.

18.       This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy).  Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further.  In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made.  Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy).  In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. Those learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.

 

POFA and CRA breaches

19.       Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation').  If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance and liability transferred. 

20.       Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA').  The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

21.       Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer.  In the case of a 'PCN', this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith. 

 

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms)

22.       ParkingEye overcame the possibility of their £85 charge being dismissed as punitive, however the Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts.  That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text.  Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, the Beavis case facts (in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

23.       Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor any 'concealed pitfalls or traps'.

24.       In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver.  Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed.  Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge, include:

a.     Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

b.     Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

25.       Both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

a.     Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound.  It was unsurprising that she did not see the sign, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space'' (NB: when parking operator Claimants cite Vine, they often mislead courts by quoting out of context, Roch LJ's words about the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio).  

26.       Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies.  In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." 

 

27.       Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR

28.       DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules).  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, grace period or exemptions (whatever the landowner's definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this specific area.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents.

29.       The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new Code shows that genuine disputes such as this - even if the facts were narrowed later - would have seen the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed.  Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair ADR was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and would have rejected almost any dispute: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (IPC's 2020 Annual Report).  

 

30.       Conclusion

31.       The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

32.       With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

 

33.       In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

a.     at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

b.     for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

34.       Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

 

35.       Statement of Truth

36.       I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

37.       Defendant’s signature:

38.       Date:

 

 

Fruitcake

There is still a load of irrelevant waffle in there.

Use the template.

Change paragraphs 2 and 3, and only paragraphs 2 and 3.

Quote the correct Schedule of the PoFA (it's 4 not 3)

Include para 3 (4) that specifically includes the word "byelaws".

Correct spelling and grammar (has not as).

Only show us the parts of the template that you have changed. We know the rest is correct. We are checking your work not Coupon-mad's.

chap_in_leeds

Fruitcake said:

There is still a load of irrelevant waffle in there.

Use the template.

This a direct copy and paste from this template: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 Using the post at 26 February 2020 at 4:37PM edited 29 May 2022 at 1:51PM by CouponMad. Is this the wrong template?

Can you indicate what I should remove?

Change paragraphs 2 and 3, and only paragraphs 2 and 3.

 I have added a new para 2 to explain the delay - keep?

 I have only edited 3 and 4 (paras 2 and 3 in the original) - or have I made other errors? Thanks

Quote the correct Schedule of the PoFA (it's 4 not 3)

Include para 3 (4) that specifically includes the word "byelaws".

Correct spelling and grammar (has not as).

Only show us the parts of the template that you have changed. We know the rest is correct. We are checking your work not Coupon-mad's.

Thank you.

Grizebeck

get rid of number 2 its wholly irrelevant ,
Remove all the waffle
only show us the parts on keeper liability (2/3)

chap_in_leeds

Again there is nothing about keeper liability - sorry, I am being dim on this. Please can you explain where I would put this in and where I could get the text from?

Remove all the waffle - can you indicate what is the waffle, or do you mean not post the non para 2 and 3 sections here?

get rid of number 2 its wholly irrelevant , why would you put that in there - because I am over the deadline. 

Thank you.

Grizebeck

chap_in_leeds said:

Again there is nothing about keeper liability - sorry, I am being dim on this. Please can you explain where I would put this in and where I could get the text from?

Remove all the waffle - can you indicate what is the waffle, or do you mean not post the non para 2 and 3 sections here?

get rid of number 2 its wholly irrelevant , why would you put that in there - because I am over the deadline. 

Thank you.

You don't need to tell the court your over the deadline, its wholly irrelevant
Read the newbies and you have been advised above about no keeper liability