Left the site parking fine

Henryhoover123

i have written/copied/tweaked this as my paragraphs for facts and sequence of events.. would you mind having a quick look?

Facts and sequence of events

 

3.    Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on xxxxxxx, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

 

4  The breach given is ‘Driver Left Site Designated for Customer Parking Only’.  The Defendant maintains that they were a genuine customer of one or more of the retail premises associated with the car park on the material date. Following receipt of the PCN, the defendant submitted an appeal to the Claimant, in which they explained that they had used the facilities as intended.  The Claimant requested supporting documentation such as receipts. However the defendant no longer had such documents in their possession and was unable to comply with this request.  The Defendant submits that the absence of receipts does not prove non-customer status, nor does it entitle the Claimant to assert a breach of contract.

 

5. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to demostrate that the Defendant was not a customer of the site.  Furthermore, the signage that refers to the car park being for customer use only does not clearly prohibit customers from temporarily leaving the site or define the geographical boundaries of the site with sufficient precision.

 

6. There is no clear site boundary map displayed or site description printed to clearly outline a site boundary. The area controlled by the Claimant is an open access area with shopping facilities and, there is no barrier or payment upon several entry ways.  The signage does not define the boundaries of the “site,” which leads to ambiguity regarding where the driver can and cannot go.  Ambiguous terms in a contract, particularly in consumer contracts, are required to be clear and transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. G24's failure to clearly define the site boundary renders this term unenforceable.

 

7. The Claimant has also provided no evidence of the breach stated, that the keeper/ driver of the vehicle left the site.  There are photos of the car parked in the car park but no evidence to  demonstrate that the Defendant did actually leave the site.

Gr1pr

Seems a bit long but is reasonable 

Presumably paragraph 2 ends with keeper and driver   ?

Henryhoover123

no it didnt - I seem to have copied a slightly different defense from a RTF dropbox link but ive gone back to the original one in the thread now. thanks

Car1980

I was on such a site today at an Asda where exiting was forbidden.  There was a marked pedestrian exit which loads of people were using!

For your witness statement you might want to include a photo if there was a clear pedestrian exit. Most sites have them, and obviously none of them have a "if you use this exit you agree to pay £100" sign.  

Although it won't get that far, as I said.