Please check my draft defence! Parallel Parking LTD

B789

Money_Savvy said:

Fruitcake said:

I've only skim read it, but have you got Jopson v Homeguard in there? This was an appeal case where the judge stated that dropping off/picking up is not parking. Being an appeal case it is persuasive on the lower courts.

The transcript is available on line, but you only need to quote the case number, the judge's name, and the relevant few lines from the judge around paras 19/20. 

Thank you, I had a look at this case and appeal. I decided not to use it as I thought it left too many arguments for the claimant to raise on how my case was different. I would be happy to be educated otherwise though!

Can you elucidate on your decision not to include Jopson v Homeguard? What arguments do you think the claimant can raise that are not in the PoC? Why do you think that your "dropping off" is different from anything raised in that persuasive case?

Money_Savvy

B789 said:

Money_Savvy said:

Fruitcake said:

I've only skim read it, but have you got Jopson v Homeguard in there? This was an appeal case where the judge stated that dropping off/picking up is not parking. Being an appeal case it is persuasive on the lower courts.

The transcript is available on line, but you only need to quote the case number, the judge's name, and the relevant few lines from the judge around paras 19/20. 

Thank you, I had a look at this case and appeal. I decided not to use it as I thought it left too many arguments for the claimant to raise on how my case was different. I would be happy to be educated otherwise though!

Can you elucidate on your decision not to include Jopson v Homeguard? What arguments do you think the claimant can raise that are not in the PoC? Why do you think that your "dropping off" is different from anything raised in that persuasive case?

That it wasn't a residential area with resident permit rights, nor did I have a permit to 'park' (stop the vehicle) or a lease outlining ease of use? Forgive me, this is way over my head. Do you think I should add it?

B789

Money_Savvy said:

That it wasn't a residential area with resident permit rights, nor did I have a permit to 'park' (stop the vehicle) or a lease outlining ease of use? Forgive me, this is way over my head. Do you think I should add it?

Absolutely, yes.

Money_Savvy

B789 said:

Money_Savvy said:

That it wasn't a residential area with resident permit rights, nor did I have a permit to 'park' (stop the vehicle) or a lease outlining ease of use? Forgive me, this is way over my head. Do you think I should add it?

Absolutely, yes.

Thanks, I'll put it in... Where would be best to add this?

Trainerman

Money_Savvy said:

B789 said:

Money_Savvy said:

Fruitcake said:

I've only skim read it, but have you got Jopson v Homeguard in there? This was an appeal case where the judge stated that dropping off/picking up is not parking. Being an appeal case it is persuasive on the lower courts.

The transcript is available on line, but you only need to quote the case number, the judge's name, and the relevant few lines from the judge around paras 19/20. 

Thank you, I had a look at this case and appeal. I decided not to use it as I thought it left too many arguments for the claimant to raise on how my case was different. I would be happy to be educated otherwise though!

Can you elucidate on your decision not to include Jopson v Homeguard? What arguments do you think the claimant can raise that are not in the PoC? Why do you think that your "dropping off" is different from anything raised in that persuasive case?

That it wasn't a residential area with resident permit rights, nor did I have a permit to 'park' (stop the vehicle) or a lease outlining ease of use? Forgive me, this is way over my head. Do you think I should add it?

Yes, absolutely you should add it. The fundamental point is that the Judge ruled that delivering or dropping off is not parking ! You need that, and must not get hung up on stuff about permits

Money_Savvy

Ok so this is my added paragraph for the jopson v homeguard...

8. The Defendant refers to paras 19, 20, 21 of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E in which HHJ Harris QC gives a definition of what is and is not parking; “The purported prohibition was upon “parking”, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time… The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment [sic] for these purposes”. Adding that “Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture”.

How's that?

B789

Money_Savvy said:

B789 said:

Money_Savvy said:

That it wasn't a residential area with resident permit rights, nor did I have a permit to 'park' (stop the vehicle) or a lease outlining ease of use? Forgive me, this is way over my head. Do you think I should add it?

Absolutely, yes.

Thanks, I'll put it in... Where would be best to add this?

There are plenty of WS on here that refer to it. Do a search and see where and how they have added it to their WS.

Money_Savvy

B789 said:

Money_Savvy said:

B789 said:

Money_Savvy said:

That it wasn't a residential area with resident permit rights, nor did I have a permit to 'park' (stop the vehicle) or a lease outlining ease of use? Forgive me, this is way over my head. Do you think I should add it?

Absolutely, yes.

Thanks, I'll put it in... Where would be best to add this?

There are plenty of WS on here that refer to it. Do a search and see where and how they have added it to their WS.

Thank you! Should I put it in my WS rather than my defence then?

Coupon-mad

Both, if your case was about loading/unloading.

Money_Savvy

Thanks to you all