DEFENCE DRAFT INCLUDED NOW - HELP WITH DEFENCE - WHAT IN MY CASE TO INCLUDE

Mouse007

boffintosh said:

... isn’t a question about how to adapt the defence. I know how to adapt my defence using the template the question was which is the stronger defence in my situation.

Wrong approach, treat them as twin equals. You will have no idea what the bingo judge thinks until it is too late.

Coupon-mad

Concisely mention all points in as your paragraph 3 and 4.

Do not just use the template defence, there is more to be said for any DCBLegal case.

KeithP

boffintosh said:

KeithP said:

You keep telling people not to worry.
What a relief. Thanks.

How many threads do we now have about this one parking incident?

only 2. The other one was an unrelated question regarding a letter of claim which was not covered by newbies.  

This is a simple question to the forum asking what holds the stronger argument in my defence.  So I know what to focus on as I write it.

'Unrelated question'?
That's not true.
It is related to at least one of your other threads.

And your second point is impossible for anyone to answer with any certainty - as @Mouse007 has pointed out.

boffintosh

DRAFT DEFENCE,

any tips to tweak this would be appreciated as i want to get it finalised and printed off before end of the weekend. many thanks.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

 

3. On the evening before the Tuesday 3rd July 2018, the defendant had parked their car within the private residential area of Fosse Close.  The defendant at this time was a legal lodger under a rolling tenancy agreement at number 9 Fosse Close.  The homeowner of number 9 had given verbal authorisation for the tenant to park within the residential area as a legal resident until such a time that the tenancy had ended and the defendant had moved to a new address.  There was no mention on the subject of parking within the tenancy agreement, the defendant was not aware or had seen any agreement between the residents and UKPC ltd, showing that all the homeowners allowed the variation to their leases based on the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 section 37(5)(a) or (5)(b).

The residential street at the time had numerous signs upon the entrance of the street with different messaging, with one of the signs slightly obscured by a bush from a private residents garden.  2 of the signs upon the entrance were not related to UKPC ltd and instead was an information sign in lettering of suitable size indicating that the street was a private street and parking was ONLY for residents. 

It was under the assumption to the defendant that any parking control at Fosse would be to deter NON RESIDENTS from parking their cars upon the land which ONLY legal residents were allowed to park. 

 

In addition,  The defendant states that the parking charge says that the car was not parked within the marking of a bay or space when there are no marked bays or spaces within Fosse Close at the time of the ticket being issued, nor were any permits issued to residents of Fosse Close from UKPC ltd. 

The defendant was not able to read the signage that was given from UKPC ltd in the parking charge notice due to the signs being mounted too high up the lamppost to read with their height of 5ft 4”, with font size too small and the sign being unlit, the signage view was also completely impossible to read with the bright light of the lamppost shadowing the view of the signage.

B789

Looks more like a WS. Your defence should be short and punchy with just the legal arguments against the PoC. Knowing that this is a UKPC/DCB Legal bottom-dwelling duo with atrocious PoC and a signed statement of truth (not) by the infamous Yasmin Mia, you need to use the johny86 template which includes the extra points.

An example of the template is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

In your para #3, you just put what is necessary to answer what is in the PoC. You will expand on everything later when it comes to the WS stage even though it is highly probable that the Bottom-Dwelling duo will discontinue as long as you use this defence.

If you introduce or later remove a paragraph that you added, every paragraph has to be numbered sequentially.

boffintosh said:

any tips to tweak this would be appreciated as i want to get it finalised and printed off before end of the weekend. many thanks.

Why do you need to print it? It should be sent as an attachment by email to the CCBC as per the 12 point checklist.

boffintosh

B789 said:

Looks more like a WS. Your defence should be short and punchy with just the legal arguments against the PoC. Knowing that this is a UKPC/DCB Legal bottom-dwelling duo with atrocious PoC and a signed statement of truth (not) by the infamous Yasmin Mia, you need to use the johny86 template which includes the extra points.

An example of the template is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

In your para #3, you just put what is necessary to answer what is in the PoC. You will expand on everything later when it comes to the WS stage even though it is highly probable that the Bottom-Dwelling duo will discontinue as long as you use this defence.

If you introduce or later remove a paragraph that you added, every paragraph has to be numbered sequentially.

boffintosh said:

any tips to tweak this would be appreciated as i want to get it finalised and printed off before end of the weekend. many thanks.

Why do you need to print it? It should be sent as an attachment by email to the CCBC as per the 12 point checklist.

thank you for the tips! 

oh im printing it to sign it then ill scan in and email as per the post. 

B789

boffintosh said:
oh im printing it to sign it then ill scan in and email as per the post. 

You don't need to print it all, just the signature page if you're going to physically sign it. You can use an image of your signature, in which case you don't have to slaughter any trees or you can just type your name.

The signature for a statement of truth may be printed electronically, by computer or other mechanical means (CPR 5.3). The name of the person whose signature is printed must also be printed so that the person may be identified. In respect of the meaning of CPR 5.3, the signature of documents by mechanical means: The Signature of documents by mechanical means: The Civil Court Practice (The Green Book) [CPR 5.3 [1]] states that this rule has general application and applies to any signature that is required for example, a statements of truth.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05#5.3

Whether it is a legal contract or a statement of truth for the court, the following applies regarding electronic signatures:

1. a person typing his or her name into a contract or into an email containing the terms of a contract;
2. a person electronically pasting his or her signature (e.g. in the form of an image) into an electronic (i.e. soft copy) version of the contract in the appropriate place (e.g. next to the relevant party’s signature block);
3. a person accessing a contract through a web-based electronic signature platform and clicking to have his or her name in a typed or handwriting font automatically inserted into the contract in the appropriate place (e.g. next to the relevant party’s signature block); and
4. a person using a finger, light pen or stylus and a touchscreen to write his or her name electronically in the appropriate place (e.g. next to the relevant party’s signature block) in the contract."

See also the Electronic Communications Act 2000 Provision 7:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/7/section/7/enacted#:~:text=7Electronic%20signatures%20and%20related%20certificates&text=shall%20each%20be%20admissible%20in,of%20the%20communication%20or%20data.

KeithP

Has this issue progressed in the last five months?

I would expected you to have received and returned a Directions Questionnaire by now. 

boffintosh

nope nothing on this case, thank you. 

Le_Kirk

boffintosh said:

nope nothing on this case, thank you. 

That is worrying, given that you filed your AoS in April and subsequently filed you defence (we hope) and we would have expected that you had received a DQ by now.  Might be worth checking your MCOL status page to see what the latest situation is.  You could have a default judgment against you!