Claim form

brighton74

BW legal have been in contact and are calling back later

brighton74

Both signs in my photos are Premier park, One hard to see because of the Ivy… One Parking solution still have some of the parking areas.
Crazy, A small little plot that has 2 parking companies.

Coupon-mad

brighton74 said:

Both signs in my photos are Premier park, One hard to see because of the Ivy… One Parking solution still have some of the parking areas.
Crazy, A small little plot that has 2 parking companies.

Which will feature in your defence.

Do NOT talk to BW Legal on the phone...eek!

brighton74

MCOL filed today… Gladstones was the original solicitors now BW legal have now taken over… Very strange! …. Thank you for the help with this.

Coupon-mad

So you've done the AOS?

Show us your draft paras 2 and 3 (not the whole template please).

brighton74

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3.  Referring to the quantum in the POC: the claimed sum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land and interest cannot accrue on that inflated total) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Regarding the pleaded case: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are also denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were likely inadequate. The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.

Coupon-mad

brighton74 said:

East side Entrance/Exit Goldstone Street 

So in this particular case, was the car on the right of this view, nearest this end?

There are no signs there as far as I know.

I recall this place from fighting OPS, who by the way do still have signs on the LEFT of that view. Looks like one building - left hand side in the above view - uses OPS and one building (Industrial House) uses Premier Park.

But the signs on the building are far to high to read even at the building's doorway. Look, the PP sign is tiny and at the height of two cars with no lighting.

It's the teeny sign to the right of the massive words 'Industrial House'. No contract was agreed then!

Not prominent even in daytime and if your car was to the right then I think there are next to no PP signs. There are BHCC signs, so it's still council owned:

Remind us, did you ever appeal this one or the other one with the separate new thread? Do they know who was driving?

Coupon-mad

brighton74 said:

3.  Referring to the quantum in the POC: the claimed sum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land and interest cannot accrue on that inflated total) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Regarding the pleaded case: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are also denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were likely inadequate. The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.

Hold off.

There's more that you can put when responding to both your claims. For a start, you missed what I put at the top of this page.

brighton74

My vehicle is in the south part of the car park bottom left of photo

Coupon-mad

Hang on isn't that where the car was in your other thread? At the entrance?