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

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

and show us your paragraph 5 and make it clear you were a passenger. 

As above.

You haven't done that and you only need one 'facts' paragraph (5) about the parking event, then make your para 10 paragraph 6 instead.  Then the rest of the Template Defence re-numbered.

nopcns

You are answering the PoC. No need for War and Peace at this stage. You were there but were not the driver. No signs with any terms visible until returning to vehicle. No contract with the claimant which is a separate entity from the name on the signs.

You can flesh out the story if/when you need to submit your WS.

Coupon-mad

Yes you state that the D was a passenger.

misiabela

Is it better?

5. The defendant was at the Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve on the day of the alleged breach of terms of contract as a passenger.  The defendant did not see any signs with any terms visible on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or anywhere else until the defendant was on the way back to the carpark and saw 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 the actual car park. The routed walk did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine. 

6. Upon checking Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve website  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.

Coupon-mad

You should be saying that neither the Defendant nor the driver saw any signs.  It's not your burden as passenger!

Then change this as well:

The routed walk did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine. 

to this:

The route walked did not take the driver past any other signs relating to parking, or the curiously isolated and non-prominent ticket machine. In any event, it seems that any contract was offered by a third party. This is the wrong Claimant (and the wrong Defendant because this Claimant does not appear to be compliant with the applicable law and cannot rely on 'keeper liability' in this case).

misiabela

Coupon-mad said:

You should be saying that neither the Defendant nor the driver saw any signs.  It's not your burden as passenger!

Then change this as well:

The routed walk did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine. 

to this:

The route walked did not take the driver past any other signs relating to parking, or the curiously isolated and non-prominent ticket machine. In any event, it seems that any contract was offered by a third party. This is the wrong Claimant (and the wrong Defendant because this Claimant does not appear to be compliant with the applicable law and cannot rely on 'keeper liability' in this case).

Thank you for that. can they ask me at court who the driver was? I guess I do not have to say, even if they do, is that right?

Coupon-mad

You can say it was your husband.  Don't hide that.  You could even say that in the defence and it would be OK.  Just don't name him; there is no obligation to do so.

misiabela

Also, should I say "the route walked did not take the driver..." if I was not the driver? 

Coupon-mad

Yes.  Definitely.  That's why I changed it.

The point is that the contract is formed (or not) between the DRIVER and the parking operator.  It isn't about what you did.

misiabela

Ok thank you.

it is what I've got:

5. The defendant was at the Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve on the day of the alleged breach of terms of contract as a passenger.  The defendant or the driver did not see any signs with any terms visible on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or anywhere else until the defendant came back to the carpark and saw 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 the actual car park. The route walked did not take the driver past any other signs relating to parking, or the curiously isolated and non-prominent ticket machine. In any event, it seems that any contract was offered by a third party. This is the wrong Claimant (and the wrong Defendant because this Claimant does not appear to be compliant with the applicable law and cannot rely on 'keeper liability' in this case).

6. Upon checking Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve website  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.