Park watch / Debt Recovery Plus / bw legal

bod54

bod54 said:

Gr1pr said:

Lets see your current draft of paragraphs 2 & 3

Just a the stage of putting it together so only cut and paste the one off the forum for now.  Will post soon as have drafted it.

How does this look for initial draft? Thanks

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. The defendant denies that the breaches of contract occurred. The defendant argues that the address given of the alleged breaches of contract is not in fact Hamilton Street, Chester. The defendant saw no contractual signs because they are sparsely placed and/or were blocked by other vehicles and/or the lighting was insufficient. In any event, no contract existed with the Claimant. It is believed that the signs identify the principal ‘Muir Group'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party at the location is Muir Group not the Claimant, who is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Le_Kirk

Are you admitting or denying being the driver? If admitting, you need to adjust paragraph #2.  If denying, you need to adjust paragraph #3 as it seems very much like you were driving as you know far too much about the signage. You could, of course, have been a passenger.  I think you should "deny that the address given of the alleged ........" rather than "argue that the address ..................." .

Coupon-mad

And remove this which clashes with the first sentence of para 4:

" The defendant denies that the breaches of contract occurred."

bod54

Thanks Le_Kirk and Coupon-mad for tips.  I have made the relevant amendments as suggested including admitting being the driver. If this seems ok I'll submit it today. Would appreciate any further comments.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The defendant denies that the address given of the alleged breaches of contract is not in fact Hamilton Street, Chester. The defendant saw no contractual signs because they are sparsely placed and/or were blocked by other vehicles and/or the lighting was insufficient. In any event, no contract existed with the Claimant. It is believed that the signs identify the principal ‘Muir Group'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party at the location is Muir Group not the Claimant, who is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Coupon-mad

Looks good. Submit the defence on MCOL.

  

And a reminder now we're on page two, about the Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

And we understand that you may need some pointers.

I'm taking a closer look this week and we'll walk you through it. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week.

There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of/need focus. There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on. 

Le_Kirk

bod54 said:

3. The defendant denies that the address given of the alleged breaches of contract is not in fact Hamilton Street, Chester. The defendant saw no contractual signs because they are sparsely placed and/or were blocked by other vehicles and/or the lighting was insufficient. In any event, no contract existed with the Claimant. It is believed that the signs identify the principal ‘Muir Group'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party at the location is Muir Group not the Claimant, who is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Now you've changed the sense of the paragraph #3 it needs to read as above.

bod54

Le_Kirk said:

bod54 said:

3. The defendant denies that the address given of the alleged breaches of contract is not in fact Hamilton Street, Chester. The defendant saw no contractual signs because they are sparsely placed and/or were blocked by other vehicles and/or the lighting was insufficient. In any event, no contract existed with the Claimant. It is believed that the signs identify the principal ‘Muir Group'. By any reasonable interpretation, the contracting party at the location is Muir Group not the Claimant, who is merely an agent and has no standing to bring a claim in their own name, pursuant to Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Now you've changed the sense of the paragraph #3 it needs to read as above.

Yes, nice one!

bod54

Thanks for all the input, I have submitted my defence on MCOL. Do I now wait for the Directions Questionnaire? Is it sent via post?

Gr1pr

Keep studying the 8 steps in the defence template thread,  that gives you the process 

Yes it's via post,  not email 

Coupon-mad

bod54 said:

Thanks for all the input, I have submitted my defence on MCOL. Do I now wait for the Directions Questionnaire? Is it sent via post?

Yes but that's weeks away. Let's concentrate in the Public Consultation first!