Misspelled car park name on claim form for court. Does it matter?

misiabela

I was not the driver. I just wrote what we did on the day and explained there were no signs etc, as I was there and it was my car, but I was not driving.

I believe that the hharry100 version would apply if there is no statement about the breach on the claim form, but on my form there is (I think). This is what's said on my claim form:

misiabela

My husband was driving on the day

nopcns

misiabela said:

I believe that the hharry100 version would apply if there is no statement about the breach on the claim form, but on my form there is (I think).

You think wrong. Nowhere in those PoC does it state what the alleged breach of terms was. It only states that terms were breached. That is an abject failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Directions Part 16 .

Use the CEL v Chan judgment as a preliminary matter.

Coupon-mad

"I believe that the hharry100 version would apply if there is no statement about the breach on the claim form, but on my form there is (I think)."

Where? I don't understand. There isn't!

Start again with the hharry version and show us your paragraph 5 and make it clear you were a passenger. 

misiabela

Right, ok, thank you for your suggestions, I appreciate it as I have no idea what I'm doing. I'll start again and then share it here.

Castle

According to their website, the car park is operated by Bransby Wilson.
Car parking at Knettishall Heath | Suffolk Wildlife Trust

misiabela

Castle said:

According to their website, the car park is operated by Bransby Wilson.
Car parking at Knettishall Heath | Suffolk Wildlife Trust

It looks like it. I wonder why I received the PCN from Minister Baywatch then? Does it matter in my case? Should i use it in any way?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Search the forum.

misiabela

Ok, I used paras 1- 4 as in suggested defence,

I left my original defence (is it to detailed? if something is unnecessary, please, let me know, which parts to get rid of).
I also added para 10 found in someone else's defence, so here it is:

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver. 

5. The defendant travelled as a passenger to Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve for a family walk to celebrate a family member’s birthday. 

4. The defendant had been at this location many times within the past 10 years. For years the only form of payment for the carpark at the location was cash in coins at the barrier, so defendant came prepared with some coins to pay for the car park. 

5. There was no barrier at the entrance. The defendant did not see any signs relating to parking charges on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or where they parked. 

6. The defendant entered the car park, went for a family walk around the park using one of the routs and on the way back to the car park from the other side, the defendant noticed there was a ticket machine. It was not visible from the car park as it was on the other side, near the picnic area, but not on actual car park. The routed walk did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine. 

7. The machine would not accept cash as payment. The defendant did not take the wallet for the walk and could not use their mobile phone because there was no service in the area. The defendant left the carpark.

8. When the defendant received the PCN, it was explained then, that the payment could have been made online by midnight on the day of the car park usage. There was no such information on the day.

9. When the defendant was informed that it could be paid online, the defendant went online and paid a daily car park fee, as it was not in the defendant’s intention to avoid payment, the defendant was not made aware of such possibility on the day. 

10. Upon checking Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve  the defendant noted that the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (Agent). At no point has the defendant had any contact from or with BW Parking Solutions. The defendant believes that the Claimant, Minster Baywatch (Stranger) has no right to create or enforce a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a contract offered by them, that was prominently displayed so that it was bound to be seen, as well as a chain of authority from the landowner allowing Minster Baywatch to sue in their own name despite the disclosed principal on the solitary sign.

Fruitcake

That still reads as if the defendant was the driver, is written more like a witness statement that comes later in the process, and doesn't include anything about the claim being from one company yet the contract displayed on the signs is from a completely different company.