National Parking Control and DCB Legal

bigbadbri79

Ok thanks.. Do you mean a denial of being the driver?  Sorry to be a pain, but thank you for the help.

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 not the driver of the vehicle.

3. With regards to the POC in question, the Defendant is a member of the David Lloyd Colchester health club and was entitled to park on site at the material time.

Gr1pr

Correct,  except in para 2 , change and to but 

For paragraph 3, if the defendant was not the driver,  it should be the Driver is etc  ( nothing to do with your membership,  if any  )

I would think that more needs to be done to flesh out the proposed paragraph 3

bigbadbri79

Ok thanks... a redo of 3....

The Defendant is a longstanding member of the David Lloyd Colchester health club, which provides on-site parking facilities exclusively for its members and authorised visitors. As part of the club’s membership benefits, members are granted permission to use the car park while attending the premises for fitness or leisure purposes. On the material date, the Defendant attended the club as a paying member for legitimate use of the facilities and was therefore fully entitled to park on site. 

Gr1pr

So the defendant was a passenger and a relative drove   ?  That's how paragraph 3 currently reads

Or was the defendant not the driver and not present either   ?

bigbadbri79

OK.  I don't think it reads like that?  But the defendant was the driver and present.

I am confused as previous info says not to admit being driver?

Gr1pr

I understood that you were not the driver,  because of what was said about the daughter in post 1

Start again , if you were keeper and driver,  say so in para 2

Then use you para 3 above 

Post both paras below,  for critique 

bigbadbri79

Ok thanks.  Nothing to do with me - I was not present.  Daughter was driver and keeper.  I am doing the paperwork on her behalf as she is working ungodly hours.

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 the driver of the vehicle.

3. With regards to the POC in question, the Defendant is a longstanding member of the David Lloyd Colchester health club, which provides on-site parking facilities exclusively for its members and authorised visitors. As part of the club’s membership benefits, members are granted permission to use the car park while attending the premises for fitness or leisure purposes. On the material date, the Defendant attended the club as a paying member for legitimate use of the facilities and was therefore fully entitled to park on site. 

Gr1pr

Who is the defendant   ?  You ir your daughter   ?  Is she both keeper and driver   ?  If she is both then you are a personal assistant,  helping her,  but you cannot take over if she is the defendant 

I think you need to be clearer in who is what here

Le_Kirk

bigbadbri79 said:

3. With regards to the POC in question, The Defendant avers that a valid parking entitlement existed, and that the failure to enter the registration number was a minor administrative error. This error does not constitute a failure to comply with the core parking terms, and no contractual loss was suffered. The Defendant is a member of the David Lloyd Colchester health club and was entitled to park on site at the material time.

Oh, NO, it could easily (and far more likely) to have been a failure of the PPC's equipment - don't unnecessarily take the blame!

bigbadbri79

Le_Kirk said:

bigbadbri79 said:

3. With regards to the POC in question, The Defendant avers that a valid parking entitlement existed, and that the failure to enter the registration number was a minor administrative error. This error does not constitute a failure to comply with the core parking terms, and no contractual loss was suffered. The Defendant is a member of the David Lloyd Colchester health club and was entitled to park on site at the material time.

Oh, NO, it could easily (and far more likely) to have been a failure of the PPC's equipment - don't unnecessarily take the blame!

Ha! Sorry cut paste error from a early version!