Parkingeye Home Bargains Pwllheli

Coupon-mad

WS is a standard stage.

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

Parking Eye Signs, Oxford Road, Reading — MoneySavingExpert Forum

GelatoMan

WS = Witness Statement I didn't need to ask the audience or phone a friend 🤣

Thank you for your help what do you think of this amended defence?

3.1 The Defendant parked in the car park serving Home Bargains in Pwllheli around the date alleged by the Claimant as a legitimate customer. The Defendant denies noting prominent signs advising customers of any parking time limit. Indeed in their Claim the Claimant does not advise the specific time limit they allege The Defendant to have breached. The Defendant does not acknowledge entering into any contract or subsequently breaching any contract.

3.2. Further, on a subsequent visit to Home Bargains, Pwllheli it was noted by the Claimant that these Signs and subsequent Parking Charge Notice that the Claimant will rely upon was for £85 (with no caveats nor secondary clauses tacked onto what is in itself a secondary clause). However the claim is for £110 which was not in the contract (not that any sum was agreed or any contract entered into). This discrepancy is significantly wrong and the Defendant avers that the Claimant's improper enhancement of their claim with an unspecified and impermissible sum that was never on the signs is reason enough for its dismissal.

Thanks again for taking the time to look at this
David 

nopcns

GelatoMan said:

3.2. Further, on a subsequent visit to Home Bargains, Pwllheli it was noted by the Claimant Defendant that these Signs and subsequent Parking Charge Notice that the Claimant will rely upon was for £85 (with no caveats nor secondary clauses tacked onto what is in itself a secondary clause). However the claim is for £110 which was not in the contract (not that any sum was agreed or any contract entered into). This discrepancy is significantly wrong and the Defendant avers that the Claimant's improper enhancement of their claim with an unspecified and impermissible sum that was never on the signs is reason enough for its dismissal.

          

Coupon-mad

GelatoMan said:

3.1 The Defendant parked in the car park serving Home Bargains in Pwllheli as a legitimate customer.   The Defendant does not admit nor acknowledge entering into any contract or subsequently breaching any contract.  There were no signs seen informing drivers of any PCN risk relying upon a parking time limit.  Such onerous terms must be sufficiently prominent to meet Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' but in this case, there was inadequate notice. In their Claim, the Claimant still fails to specify the time limit term they allege was breached on the material date.

3.2.  In order to narrow the issues, the Defendant was forced to go and have a look on site.  On this subsequent visit the Defendant specifically 'went looking' for the terms (not something an average shopper would expect to do) and found a couple of unremarkable signs set away from the shops, perched high on poles.  These were at the very far end of some bay areas but not others, and none were where a driver would walk into Home Bargains.  The Defendant noted that some entire parking bay rows had no signs to be seen at all.

3.3.  The Defendant alerts the court to the fact that the sign and subsequent Parking Charge Notice that the Claimant will rely upon was for £85 (with no caveats nor secondary clauses tacked onto what is in itself a secondary clause). However the claim is for £110 which was not in the contract (not that any sum was agreed or any contract entered into). This discrepancy is significantly wrong and the Defendant avers that the Claimant's improper enhancement of their claim with an unspecified and impermissible sum that was never on the signs is reason enough for its dismissal.

Maybe better as above.

GelatoMan

Thank you much appreciated 

Castle

GelatoMan said:

Sorry I sent the Welsh one by accident it's in both languages and I speak Welsh

Thanks for the help

Do you want the hearing to be heard in Welsh?

GelatoMan

No English is my first language but thanks.....unless it willhelp

GelatoMan

D_P_Dance said:

Have you read this?

Parking Eye Signs, Oxford Road, Reading — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Yes thank you 

GelatoMan

I have just submitted my defence as a PDF electronically signed and dated to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk with the Subject L######G DEFENCE and body text "URGENT - CLAIM L######G - Defence attached".
I have received an automated response.

Thank you so much for this thread this all happened during a very difficult time, my daughter is seriously ill, without the help here I would just have paid, which I can ill afford due to not working to care for her.

So thank you guys so much for the help.

I will keep you posted,

David