County court letter; euro car park/DCB legal

Coupon-mad

OK but you don't mention the VRM log because the POC doesn't mention it 

monaymadlol

Coupon-mad said:

OK but you don't mention the VRM log because the POC doesn't mention it 

The POC mentions it I've just blanked it out.

Coupon-mad

No; the POC doesn't mention failure to exempt a vehicle.

I didn't say VRM, I said 'VRM log'.

  

monaymadlol

Ok so I don't have a defence then if I can't mention a log?

Coupon-mad

Pardon?     

monaymadlol

Coupon-mad said:

Pardon?     

You said don't mention the VRM LOG because the letter doesn't mention it

As explained, that would have been my defence as outlined 

What bit confuses you?

Coupon-mad

I merely said don't raise issues not pleaded in the POC. Only respond to the POC.

This is standard advice for good reason and doesn't mean "so I don't have a defence then". 

monaymadlol

Coupon-mad said:

I merely said don't raise issues not pleaded in the POC. Only respond to the POC.

This is standard advice for good reason and doesn't mean "so I don't have a defence then". 

When I said 'I was going to defend along the lines of - I was working at a premises behind the car park where a number of businesses are and was told by a staff member that I was allowed to park there as the company had reached an agreement with the parking co, except she didn't tell me to register my car in the log which is the truth.' and you responded with 'Ok' as your first word of your reply, it appeared you were agreeing with this as part of a defence, but then said not to mention a register since the POC didn't mention it. So when I said 'i don't have a defence ', you then appeared to disagree with this too.

Just for full explicit clarity, what angle do you think you think I should go for in the editable part of why I didn't buy a parking ticket?

Coupon-mad

You just miss out the bit they didn't plead:

3.  The Defendant was working at a premises behind the car park where a number of businesses are and was told by a staff member that they were allowed to park there, as the company had reached an agreement with the Claimant.  Therefore, the vehicle was authorised and - unlike the visiting public, perhaps (not that the Defendant has ever seen a copy of the alleged contract) - no payment was required under the circumstances. It is denied that there was a relevant obligation to purchase a pay & display ticket or 'permit'.  The Defendant believes it was impossible to 'purchase a permit' which is in the POC but appears to make no sense.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations.


And to answer your other query: if you go back and re-read the Template Defence it says "Yes, all of it".  I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. That thread also gives you the exact email to send it to and the first 12 steps (to stop people asking about the early standard letters that will arrive next). 

monaymadlol

That's a bit clearer, thanks.

Would you include a payment invoice by the company to show I worked there on said date?