Hi all, any advice would be appreciated! (proof read)

Coupon-mad

Could you repeat here what your paras 2 and 3 now say?  We are on page 3 already, and we never have time to hunt backwards on a long thread.

sundaymornings

Coupon-mad said:

Could you repeat here what your paras 2 and 3 now say?  We are on page 3 already, and we never have time to hunt backwards on a long thread.

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

3. Prior to the letter before claim from DCB Legal Ltd dated 27th April 2023 the Defendant was unaware of the alleged event and PCN.  

4. On the date of the alleged breach of contract the Defendant took some rest at Knutsford Moto services to comply with the Highway Code ensuring fitness to drive. The Defendant needed to recover from fatigue due to helping a friend pack all their belongings in the early morning and was en route a long distance from Plymouth to Edinburgh to move said belongings. Furthermore, the Defendant did not see any of the parking charge signs. 

YankeeBrit

sundaymornings said:

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

3. Prior to the letter before claim from DCB Legal Ltd dated 27th April 2023 the Defendant was unaware of the alleged event and PCN.  

4. On the date of the alleged breach of contract the Defendant took some rest at Knutsford Moto services to comply with the Highway Code ensuring fitness to drive. The Defendant needed to recover from fatigue due to helping a friend pack all their belongings in the early morning and was en route a long distance from Plymouth to Edinburgh to move said belongings. Furthermore, the Defendant did not see any of the parking charge signs. 

Perhaps... The Defendant did not notice any signs. There was nothing that was prominent or obvious about any parking restrictions.

Coupon-mad

Then that defence will be fine.

You could amalgamate your paras 2 and 3.

You could then make your paragraph 4 paragraph 3 instead...

Then add a new para 4, saying that MOTO stated in a news article that PCNs were not aimed at punishing people who need to sleep, and that they would cancel any PCN in such circumstances.  They are now reneging on that promise but this still leaves this charge without any legitimate interest.  The three figure charge imposed far exceeds any small fee/tariff for longer stays that may or may not have been on a sign.  In all the circumstances this charge is a penalty for resting, and such an unconscionable rationale is not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished.

sundaymornings

Coupon-mad said:

Then add a new para 4, saying that MOTO stated in a news article that PCNs were not aimed at punishing people who need to sleep, and that they would cancel any PCN in such circumstances.  They are now reneging on that promise but this still leaves this charge without any legitimate interest.  The three figure charge imposed far exceeds any small fee/tariff for longer stays that may or may not have been on a sign.  In all the circumstances this charge is a penalty for resting, and such an unconscionable rationale is not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished.

4.  MOTO stated in a news article that PCNs were not aimed at penalizing people who need to sleep for reasons of safety, and that they would cancel any PCN in such circumstances, which leaves this charge without any legitimate interest. The article is found here: http://www...... (I FOUND IT SOMEWHERE). The three figure charge imposed far exceeds any small fee/tariff for longer stays that may or may not have been on a sign.  In all the circumstances this charge is a penalty for resting, and such an unconscionable rationale is not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished.


That's ok to say all that and add a hyperlink?

Coupon-mad

Yes.

Have you got the link to the article please?

sundaymornings

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8784988/Tired-driver-hit-with-fine-for-taking-a-nap.html.

Also, my gov Id/password aren't working for MCOL, it won't let me reset and email confirmations put me on a loop. Setting up a new gov id/MCOL account wouldn't let me use the claim number/password combination from the form. Speaking to them via phone is impossible, I've tried. So my question is do I even need to access it anymore or will all correspondence be via email/post?

Coupon-mad

If you've done the AOS already then you will be emailing your Defence, so you can get by without MCOL now.  As long as you get an auto-receipt reply to your defence email.