UKPC lies (again). I won! Judge struck out the claim!

mmmatt

Understood!  Forgive my ignorance, just remove reference to them?

Coupon-mad

For your para 3 just have the first three bits about the BPA CoP.  Remove the rest.

Then as your para 4 just have JUST that first paragraph only and save ALL the stuff from "4. Defendant parked outside of the Claimants managed area. The Defendant admits that the car was parked for both durations at “The Lodge” - An area outside of the Claimants site boundary, with no signage..." onwards for WS stage.

Re-number the template defence after that.  Do not remove the template's para 4 nor anything else.

Please re-read 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in the second post of the Newbies thread; it's a heading that's in red capitals for a reason!

mmmatt

Perfect, thanks Coupon

mmmatt

We also admitted the RK is also the driver (in the defence), which has not been admitted before as I guess we can't go forward without doing so.

Coupon-mad

It could be defended as keeper but I see no reason to hide the driver. Admit it in para 2.

mmmatt

I'm still working on this, but they give no clues to what the driver may have done wrong in the PoC - should I be including CEL v Chen in the defence?

Umkomaas

mmmatt said:

I'm still working on this, but they give no clues to what the driver may have done wrong in the PoC - should I be including CEL v Chen in the defence?

If the POC shows no details of the 'contravention', then yes, definitely include Chan. Unlike standard advice about not including evidence as part of the Defence, in the case of Chan, include the transcript pdf. Chan should be near the top of your Defence's layout. 

mmmatt

Thanks @Umkomaas.  

"The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).  Reason:  Registered Users Only"

I've seen Claim Forms with the same wording, and they have included the Chan transcript and some have not!

Umkomaas

mmmatt said:

Thanks @Umkomaas.  

"The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).  Reason:  Registered Users Only"

I've seen Claim Forms with the same wording, and they have included the Chan transcript and some have not!

Very vague POC, I'd use Chan. No detriment if the judge disagrees that Chan applies. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you may as well use it because 'registered users only' is a bare and unexplained phrase that fails to specify the alleged breach, nor does the POC state the alleged conduct which they (should) say gave rise to a charge.

Use the defence linked separately in para 3 of the Template Defence itself.