UKPC DCB Legal court claim - Not parking within marking of bay

Coupon-mad

tescovaluevodka said:

Thanks for the response.

Not as well as I should have obviously. I focused on the response to county claim / defence. I guess I should also complain to the land owner in parallel. 

Did you ever appeal? Or just ignored it? Do not put this admission in your defence.

which inadvertently resulted in parking over the bay marking.

tescovaluevodka

I have told the landowner I parked the car as part of the complaint, so yes.

tescovaluevodka

Coupon-mad said:

tescovaluevodka said:

Thanks for the response.

Not as well as I should have obviously. I focused on the response to county claim / defence. I guess I should also complain to the land owner in parallel. 

Did you ever appeal? Or just ignored it? Do nit put this admission in your defence.

which inadvertently resulted in parking over the bay marking.

I was advised from a friend (not from this forum) to ignore, and if it's not dropped by the later stages, only respond to the county court communication.

tescovaluevodka

can you please let me the relevance of a) admitting I was the driver; or b) not appealing to the earlier stages? Does this have an impact on how the defence is written? I have already modified the template to include "and driver".

Coupon-mad

Admitting to driving is fine.

tescovaluevodka

I went to the site and took photos etc. It is genuinely not possible to read the sign from any marked pedestrian areas.

I would very much appreciate some comments on my updated draft.. pls see below:

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxx of which the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, was parked on the material date had paid the correct fee. 

4. Due to the inadequate total number of allocated parent/child spaces within the car park, and therefore available that day, the claimant had no other option other than to park in a regular bay which is not sufficient in size to wholly accommodate the defendants vehicle and requirements (safe entry/exit for their child).

5. The defendant parked in the end bay (ensuring no other users could block entry to the vehicle) with the absolute minimum amount of space to get an infant in and out of the vehicle safely, demonstrating that it was impossible to comply with the poorly defined / communicated terms and conditions.

6. In addition, the space in which the defendant parked is partially obstructed by a curb, which reduces the overall size of the bay by approximately 10cm. This also makes it very distracting / difficult to get in and out of the space without damaging the vehicle, further increasing the difficulty to comply with the terms and conditions.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Moreover, there were not adequately prominent signs communicating the terms and conditions near many of the spaces inside the car park.  The sign closest to the vehicle is on a ramp to the rooftop floor of the car park and is impossible to see when the light from outside is reflecting off it. It is also impossible to see the text without standing on the ramp itself which is a clearly marked no pedestrian zone. The only other sign on the opposite side of the car park could have easily been obstructed by a parked car, and again the text is not visible from the marked pedestrian zone. There are no other visible signs when exiting the car park via the designated pedestrian zone.

Thanks in Advance. 

Coupon-mad

It's not a "curb". Arrrgh! Sorry. We aren't in the USA.  A wrong spelling that grates with me.

Remove this too:

"demonstrating that it was impossible to comply with the poorly defined / communicated terms and conditions."

tescovaluevodka

do I also remove the similar statement on line 6 " further increasing the difficulty to comply with the terms and conditions"?

Coupon-mad

I think remove 6, 7 and 9 which can all go into your WS later on.  That also removes "curb"!

tescovaluevodka

thanks,

I have seen in other posts, people have been advised to include examples where cases have been struck out. does that apply to any case including mine, or only certain situations?