VARS Technology claim – Starbucks car park – signage unclear – defence help please

Gr1pr

As above, defendant, which is you in a defence , plus -

You cannot use the speech marks on MCOL, the following characters are banned

" ( )

coffeewoman1092

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81927025#Comment_81927025

noted, thank you.

Coupon-mad

Yep, make those changes and revert to the Template Defence wording and then follow the 8 steps. Easy!

🙂

coffeewoman1092

Hi

Thank you for the comments. I am a little confused about my partner's defence as it was me driving still, but his car. So do I remove 'and driver' from para 2, and keep all the other details the same? Because it says 'the defendant' was a genuine customer in para 3, which wouldn't be entirely correct with my partners defence.

Gr1pr

For your partners defence, Paragraph 2 ends ( if true. ), keeper but not the driver

Paragraph 3 depends on if the defendant was an occupant of the vehicle ( passenger. ) or not

Where was the defendant at the time of the incident. ?

There can only be one Registered Keeper, but can be 1 or 2 or multiple drivers

1505grandad

Just checking - there seem to be two claims mentioned in the thread - are there two different cars involved each with a different RK?

1. Is this a good defence? I now have two of these for £270 and feel this is wholly unfair, but am concerned that the point of 'overstaying' is correct but the 'contract' seems to be inconsistent.

There is also a second claim relating to the same car park one week later, but that claim is against a different keeper (my partner).

Coupon-mad

Just alter each one to make sense for each Defendant's position.

coffeewoman1092

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81937163#Comment_81937163

I was just driving my partners car on that occasion. He wasn’t in the car.

coffeewoman1092

Do i change paragraph 3 for my partner's defence to say 'the driver…' etc?

So it would look like:

2. The allegation is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper but not the driver.

3. The Defendant understands that the allegation relates to a vehicle allegedly overstaying a ninety-minute free parking period in a customer car park serving Starbucks. The driver was a genuine customer using the café. The signage states ’90 minutes free parking’ but does not clearly explain that customers must enter their vehicle registration into a tablet inside the premises to validate their stay. The driver had been a regular customer at this location for approximately a year prior to the alleged event and had parked there many times without issue. It appears that a system requiring vehicle registration via a tablet inside the café had been introduced, however this requirement was not clearly communicated by the signage. The driver has since observed that entering a registration grants parking until 23:59 on the same day, demonstrating that the parking scheme operates differently than the signage suggests and that the terms relied upon by the Claimant were unclear.

thank you

Gr1pr

Seems OK to me but wait for other comments