Template defence from newbies thread, I got help and I WON!!

sammyb1996

ChirpyChicken said:

Remove point 2 
Make point 3 more succinct.  Less waffle.

Thanks i will remove and have changed point 3 to the following.

(I removed the fact that there was other signage. Because I guess that can just be stated in the WS?)

This okay?

“3. The defendant denies a breach of "the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Permit Holders Only". 

The denial is based on inadequate entry signage at "Car Park At DaisyField Pools Daisy Lane Blackburn BB1 5HB".

The entrance signage provided by the claimant (CEL) is not visible for any customer entering the car park driving from the North side of Daisy Lane. 

Also, the entrance signage provided by the claimant does not state where the terms and conditions can be found regarding the contract between visitor and claimant. 

The facts outlined by the defendant put the claimant in violation of the BPA Code Of practice version 8 2020. 

Therefore the defendant could not agree to the contract or be deemed to agree set out by the claimant.” 

Coupon-mad

I think other signage is important to mention. 

You should also challenge landowner authority and CEL's standing to sue. There appears to be an identified principal -  Half Fish - whose own sign offers parking for patrons and doesn't mention CEL nor is their offer subject to any relevant obligation to have or display a permit.

Coupon-mad

Please show us these different signs.

sammyb1996

This other images are on my comment from 2nd July 7:33pm. If it’s pulling through for you? Last 2 images of disabled sign and half fish sign.

the HF sign doesn’t mention anything to do with a parking permit or fine etc. 

When I first got the PCN’s I did speak to the manager who said was nothing really to do with them and fobbed me off. They left shortly after that and I stopped going after being spoken to like that. 

Since then pool closed down in aug 2023. And the CEL signs have been taken down in car park. 

sammyb1996

Hi all, just an update. 

Thanks for your help, I submitted my new defence and it’s been accepted by the court and court date given for about 5 weeks time. I’ve since had an email from DCB Legal (looks like an actual human as they’ve been calling me weekly with an automated computer voice asking to me speak to me), stating that they would accept a reduced rate of £60. I haven’t responded and don’t think I will be doing. 

Thanks again 

Gr1pr

I predict a discontinuation very soon, keep checking your inbox and spam folders for their N279 document and post a redacted picture of the N279 document after it arrives 

Coupon-mad

sammyb1996 said:

Hi all, just an update. 

Thanks for your help, I submitted my new defence and it’s been accepted by the court and court date given for about 5 weeks time. I’ve since had an email from DCB Legal (looks like an actual human as they’ve been calling me weekly with an automated computer voice asking to me speak to me), stating that they would accept a reduced rate of £60. I haven’t responded and don’t think I will be doing. 

Thanks again 

Great! It's back on track.

Discontinuance is coming (show us the NoD when it arrives) but don't miss the deadline for your WS & evidence, which is on that hearing Order.

And don't miss responding this month to the the Public Consultation. Bookmark the thread all about it now. Linked in umpteen thrteads.

wdz

Hi , 

Can you please share the defence template which is accepted and easy to edit. I have to submit within few days.

Thanks

Gr1pr

top of this forum, 2nd thread from the top

sammyb1996

wdz said:

Hi , 

Can you please share the defence template which is accepted and easy to edit. I have to submit within few days.

Thanks

Hi here is my final defence I used below. 

As mentioned by the others in this thread, you don’t need to use the full defence template in the newbie thread (or if any of it, unless some parts apply to your scenario).
You basically just need to acknowledge and respond to the “particulars of the claim” the claimant has used against you. 

You can see the POC the claimant used against me. And here is my defence response below. 

Hope it helps! 

DEFENCE

The facts in this defence come from the defendants own and knowledge and honest belief

for reasonable grounds to defend the claim.

“Particulars of the Claim”

1. It is admitted that the defendant is the keeper of vehicle XYZ and has attended "Car Park At DaisyField Pools Daisy Lane Blackburn BB1 5HB”, at some point in the past; however, the claimant has failed to specify a date or time of the incident in the PoC.

2. The defendant can confirm that PCN’s have been issued but cannot confirm if they were issued on the 10/6/22, as the claimant has failed to specify a PCN number this incident relates to in the PoC.

3. The defendant denies that they breached "the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Permit Holders Only". The denial is based on inadequate entry signage at "Car Park At DaisyField Pools Daisy Lane Blackburn BB1 5HB". 

The entrance signage provided by the claimant is not visible for any customer entering the car park driving from the North side of Daisy Lane. 

Also, the entrance signage provided by the claimant does not state where the terms and conditions can be found regarding the contract between visitor and claimant. 

The facts outlined by the defendant above put the claimant in violation of the BPA Code Of practice version 8 2020.

The only entrance signage visible and adequate was completely separate and from Half Fish stating, “This Car park is for staff, customers and guests of Half Fish only”, the defendant has proof they were a customer of Half Fish. There was also another visible entrance sign of “Accessible Parking” for disabled drivers. None of these signs mention their affiliation to CEL, or that a permit had to be obtained by Half Fish Guests to park at the location.

Therefore, the defendant denies the claim of “breach of terms”; as the defendant could not agree to the contract or be deemed to agree set out by the claimant.

“And the claimant Claims”

1. The defendant admits the original PCN was £100, but not £170. The Claimant has added a spurious £70, for “damages”, the defendant believes there is no facts or evidence to suggest so.

2.The claimant has added in an “interest rate” which is clearly an attempt to seek more funds from the defendant