Judgment issued despite replying to claim

b0ombox

Scrap my last question @Coupon-mad  , I can see that is clearly where I need to send the defence!
However is there any other particular case I should look at in reference to my POC being inadequate and how I could best word this as part of my own defence? Thanks

Coupon-mad

You search for what I told you to look for, and use THAT version of defence.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

In fact, I'm sure I now provide a link for an alternative start to defence for such cases, in the Template Defence thread. It's right there.

You do indeed!  As this one is also sparse particulars, should the OP be adding Chan & Akande or is the new DCBL defence able to stand on its own merits?

Coupon-mad

Doesn't it already lead to a specific Chan & Akande version in the Template Defence itself for these claims?

Pretty sure I didn't dream changing it to get rid of the hharry100 link. 

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Doesn't it already lead to a specific Chan & Akande version in the Template Defence itself for these claims?

Pretty sure I didn't dream changing it to get rid of the hharry100 link. 

It does but the Chan & Akande references and link are disconnected by the large black block containing the CNBC email addresses. 

b0ombox

I'm sending my AOS tomorrow and then beginning my defence draft straight after. I've not been able to find the specific Chan & Akande ref however I have found other people's defences which reference it. I'll have another look tomorrow when I have access to a desktop for the afternoon.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

I don't understand why the clear information about these specific claims isn't being read.

I'm not planning on moving it from where it is linked, in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

b0ombox

I have found it now, apologies. I feel there is sometimes so much information to read you can't see the woods for the trees, it definitely takes a few thorough read throughs. Currently using the specific DBL defence and editing appropriately. Am I correct in thinking that at this stage it is almost a copy and paste job, as the sparsity of the POC means I have nothing to 'defend' until the next steps? The basic facts are that I was in the car park for 9 minutes without paying, but they haven't specified that, however I have seen others reference the BPA 10 minutes parking grace period at this stage.. Thanks

Gr1pr

Grace periods are tacked on to the end of an authorised parking period in order to leave promptly 

I suspect that you are referring to the initial consideration period before any period of parking occurs,  consideration comes before the pay   ( or comply )   decision,  or the leave due to rejecting any parking contract decision 

b0ombox

Gr1pr said:

Grace periods are tacked on to the end of an authorised parking period in order to leave promptly 

I suspect that you are referring to the initial consideration period before any period of parking occurs,  consideration comes before the pay   ( or comply )   decision,  or the leave due to rejecting any parking contract decision 

Yes that's correct, though I see now the grace period and consideration period are different. I have been back to the car park, and read the miniscule fine print, and it mentions nothing about either.