Gladstones Claim Form

Coupon-mad

But where's the case the Template Defence tells you to include? How is it people are missing what the Template Defence says about that? Please re-read my comments in the Template Defence itself.

Le_Kirk

In your post at 1.01 pm you state you are thinking what defence to use as "its not in my car park residential bays" but then go onto talk about having held title under terms of a lease! Which is it?

paynele47

Le_Kirk said:

In your post at 1.01 pm you state you are thinking what defence to use as "its not in my car park residential bays" but then go onto talk about having held title under terms of a lease! Which is it?

Le Kirk

Well, as they refer to the land "Langley Square" in the claim, where my flat is that I rent and have terms under the tenancy agreement and I have a permit for my bay, I have relied upon I can park anywhere on the land. Whether it be outside the Co-Op.

paynele47

Coupon-mad said:

But where's the case the Template Defence tells you to include? How is it people are missing what the Template Defence says about that? Please re-read my comments in the Template Defence itself.

You mean Chan v CEL?

paynele47

OK amended to include Chan v CEL. How do I post the whole thing as if I paste its too long and dont see an attachment icon?

Thanks

KeithP

paynele47 said:

How do I post the whole thing as if I paste its too long and dont see an attachment icon?

Please don't show us the whole thing.
We don't want to see the whole thing.
Just show us those paragraphs you have added/amended.

UncleThomasCobley

paynele47 said:

OK amended to include Chan v CEL. How do I post the whole thing as if I paste its too long and dont see an attachment icon?

Thanks

If this is your defence, you must embed the transcript as images. They are available all over this forum as jpeg images which you can right-click and download to your computer and then embed them in your PDF file.

paynele47

OK here are the particulars of my defence

3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle xxx was briefly parked outside the Co-Op market shop whilst the defendant briefly bought some shopping, and was only gone five minutes.

Having visited the site, the Defendant, found one small sign from the Claimants Company, which is unnoticeable whilst entering and exiting the land due to unclear and small fonts and sign size.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. No contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

KeithP

I would remove one iteration of the word 'briefly' from your paragraph 3 and remove entirely the sentence starting "Having visited...".

UncleThomasCobley

None of that is the template defence. Where is the CEL v Chan judgment and embedded transcript?