Park Watch (Deepdale Preston) County Court Defence Review - "Not Wholly within Bay"

GDB2222

The Proferentem rule goes right back to Roman Law, so it may appeal to the judge.

Assuming this is a small track case, the judge may well allow legal arguments that have not been dealt with in the pleadings. The proceedings tend to be quite informal.

Besides that, does the template include a simple denial that the OP failed to comply with the contract?

B789

GDB2222 said:

Besides that, does the template include a simple denial that the OP failed to comply with the contract?

Not sure as the OP hasn't confirmed what they submitted with their defence apart from what they have stated in their posts.

The basic template defence is here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595/#Comment_76880595

Coupon-mad

GDB2222 said:

The Proferentem rule goes right back to Roman Law, so it may appeal to the judge.

Assuming this is a small track case, the judge may well allow legal arguments that have not been dealt with in the pleadings. The proceedings tend to be quite informal.

Besides that, does the template include a simple denial that the OP failed to comply with the contract?

Of course!  You'll see it when you read it.

Marshac85

Thank you for all the valued contributions thus far. To confirm @B789, yes that's the template defence I used. I didn't submit anything else with it at the time, just that template defence, with the following additions. Attached as an image sorry rather than text as I can't find the blooming original word document, just the scanned/wet-signed PDF. 

Marshac85

@B789 asked: 

Aside from the paragraphs that you edited, did you include everything else in the template after those 2 paragraphs?

What you may not have done is include the extra paragraphs as shown in this template defence:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkok0eqpfz00vzw/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0 

The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  

etc..

Unfortunately, those paragraphs were not part of the template defence I used, no. 

Coupon-mad

Marshac85 said:

Thank you for all the valued contributions thus far. To confirm @B789, yes that's the template defence I used. I didn't submit anything else with it at the time, just that template defence, with the following additions. Attached as an image sorry rather than text as I can't find the blooming original word document, just the scanned/wet-signed PDF. 

You stated in your defence - in black and white - that you didn't park wholly in a bay?

Oh dear.  Ouch.  You have admitted to breaching the contract and admitted the allegation.

I wish you luck but I do not really know on what basis you will defend this at the hearing.

I mean, do defend at the hearing because maybe the signs & lines are pants and at least the added fake DRA fee will probably be disallowed by the Judge.

Marshac85

Why does that have any merit what so ever?! The claimant's photograph clearly shows the car isn't parked wholly within a bay. It's a fact. That isn't what is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the defendant entered into a mutually agreed and fair contract. The wording used therefore isn't an admittance of 'guilt' at all surely?

Coupon-mad

It admits the allegation.  It's pretty much all the Claimant needs, and they will be all over that sentence like a rash at WS stage.

We would never have advised you to state that, but like I said, let's hope the lines and signs are rubbish.

Marshac85

[head now fully in hands...] I know I've made a hash of this defence folks, truly I do, but this really, really doesn't come easy with ASD & ADHD, believe me. Thank you anyway for all your contributions and for all the forum content. 

It will be what it will be now I suppose. I gave it my best, but I think it goes without saying that I'm pretty livid with myself for potentially cocking it up! 😪

foden11

the car park does not belong to toys r us it serves the whole site eg you can park in M&S at the other end walk round shopping including going to costa for coffee or something to eat, coupan mad the lines and markings are good at that site and ther is also very ample signage (iam local) 
i think you want to teach your wife how to park?