Excel parking DCB Legal court claim

jono78

revised

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)..  The quantum claimed is exaggerated, as no PCN on private land can be £170, and the Claimant has incurred no damages whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

 

3.1 The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Argos store to pick up a collection, located opposite to where The Defendant parked [redacted] car. The defendant was parked for 17 minutes in total.

 

3.2 The Defendant did not observe singage on entering the car park. On being issued a PCN posted on the 16/07/2024 and received on the 18/07/2024 the defendant took a subsequent visit to the car park and noted only one entrance sign on the entrance.

3.3 The Defendant did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the vehicle's parked location. The lack of clear, prominent, and adequate signage led to an unawareness of any parking restrictions, meaning no contract was formed.

KeithP

jono78 said:

3.1 The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Argos store to pick up a collection, located opposite to where The Defendant parked his car. The defendant was parked for 17 minutes in total.

 

3.2 The Defendant did not observe singage on entering the car park. On being issued a PCN posted on the 16/07/2024 and received on the 18/07/2024 the defendant took a subsequent visit to the car park and noted only one entrance sign on the entrance.

3.3 The Defendant did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the vehicle's parked location. The lack of clear, prominent, and adequate signage led to an unawareness of any parking restrictions, meaning no contract was formed.

As they don't know who was driving, perhaps the above paras would be better written as...

3.1 The driver, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Argos store to pick up a collection, located opposite to where the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was parked for 17 minutes in total.

 

3.2 The driver did not observe signage on entering the car park. On being issued a PCN posted on the 16/07/2024 and received on the 18/07/2024 the defendant visited the car park and noted only one entrance sign on the entrance.

3.3 The driver did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the vehicle's parked location. The lack of clear, prominent, and adequate signage led to an unawareness of any parking restrictions, meaning no contract was formed.

jono78

Do they not fail on BPA Code of Practice (Schedule 1) ?

"Signs must be positioned so that they are visible to all vehicles entering the car park, regardless of the direction of entry."

There is 1 sign and it's only visible to drivers entering the car park to the right. If entering on the left you see the back if the sign

you s

Coupon-mad

Yes but that can be covered at WS stage.

As KeithP rightly says, don't put this!

"3.1 The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Argos store to pick up a collection, located opposite to where The Defendant parked his car. The defendant was parked for 17 minutes in total."

jono78

Just to be clear

so remove 'defendant' and replace with 'driver'?

or don't include any of 3.1?

jono78

in the template defence it states

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

I was going to amend this part to include the correct information

jono78

so 3.4 is going to far at thius stage?

3.4 The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to provide adequate signage at the entrance to the car park. Specifically, the signage is only visible to drivers entering the car park when turning right into the car park. Drivers entering by turning left  are not presented with any signage upon entry. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that their entrance signage complies with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and was visible to all drivers entering the car park.

KeithP

jono78 said:

Just to be clear

so remove 'defendant' and replace with 'driver'?

or don't include any of 3.1?

I did offer you a revised 3.1.

jono78

excellent. thanks!

I guess in context of the above where its mentioned about defendant in part 2

" However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper....

Gr1pr

jono78 said:

Do they not fail on BPA Code of Practice (Schedule 1) ?

"Signs must be positioned so that they are visible to all vehicles entering the car park, regardless of the direction of entry."

There is 1 sign and it's only visible to drivers entering the car park to the right. If entering on the left you see the back if the sign

you s

Excel follow the IPC CoP in force at the time of the incident,  so I have no idea why you would mention the BPA CoP   ?

They have not complied with the BPA CoP for a decade or more   !

They never comply with Pofa