Letter Before Claim (Moorside Legal) & Letter of Claim from HM Courts MCOL

Coupon-mad

As it's only 13 months ago AND this is likely to end up with a hearing, I think you should respond a bit more to the allegation.

Goku_SuperSaiyan

Thank you for the feedback, please see adjusted Paragraph 3, with specifics on the allegation. I have included a bit about clear signage, as Parking time was later in the evening, around 8pm on wards.

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper and understands that the claim relates to an alleged overstay at a retail car park monitored by ANPR. The Defendant does not accept that the signage was sufficiently clear, prominent, or adequately illuminated to form a binding contract or to communicate any maximum stay restriction, particularly during evening hours. Further, the quantum claimed is denied as exaggerated and includes sums that appear to be an attempt at double recovery. Liability is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all aspects of the claim.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's better.

Just checking - was anyone in the car slower due to being inform or having a medical condition? Equality Act covered?

Goku_SuperSaiyan

Perfect.

Yes, there were two friends in the car, phone of them is disabled, and has a verified medical condition that can be proven; such as disable badge etc. Can this be used in paragraph 3, is this what you're saying?

Coupon-mad

Absolutely YES. Accusing car with a disabled passenger of 'overstay' is illegal under the Equality Act 2010.

Search the forum for:

Equality Act parking time tours defence

Goku_SuperSaiyan

Thank you. My only question is, my friend was issued his disable badge June 2025, this incident took place March 2025, however, his issue was persistent from a lot longer before this, and was undergoing medical help etc. Is this still applicable?

I have updated my paragraph 3 to include this:

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper and understands that the claim relates to an alleged overstay at a retail car park monitored by ANPR. The occupants of the vehicle were genuine patrons of the retail site, including a disabled passenger who required additional time during the visit. The Defendant does not accept that the signage was sufficiently clear, prominent, or adequately illuminated to form a binding contract or to communicate any maximum stay restriction, particularly during evening hours. Further, the quantum claimed is denied as exaggerated and includes sums that appear to be an attempt at double recovery. Liability is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all aspects of the claim.

patient_dream

Regarding the claim ..

BWLegal have added the fake £70 which is the famous OSNER scam

Not only is it FAKE but is a feeble attempt of DOUBLE RECOVERY which is not allowed.

BWLEGAL should carefully study the Beavis V Parking Eye case in the SUPREME COURT who stated that the charge of the ticket was set to operate the scheme

IE …. NOT ADDING FAKES

By thhe way, the OSNER scam was approved by the BPA ALL DESIGNED TO SCAM PEOPLE

Coupon-mad

Yes this is applicable to all disabled people who need more time. Blue badge issue date is totally irrelevant.

Goku_SuperSaiyan

Thank you all for your help, I have adjusted Paragraph 3 a little, just to include the Equality Act 2010, and the wording. The rest of the defence is very similar to the template, with just adjustment to grammar/language in some places.

Is there anything else that I need to consider/include, before I go forward and submit my defence?

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper and understands that the claim relates to an alleged overstay at a retail car park monitored by ANPR. The occupants of the vehicle were genuine patrons of the retail site, including a disabled passenger who required additional time during the visit. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to make reasonable allowance for disabled visitors in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The Defendant does not accept that the signage was sufficiently clear, prominent, or adequately illuminated to form a binding contract or to communicate any maximum stay restriction, particularly during evening hours. Further, the quantum claimed is denied as exaggerated and includes sums that appear to be an attempt at double recovery. Liability is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all aspects of the claim.

Coupon-mad

You don't need this, as it's already covered in the Template defence:

"Further, the quantum claimed is denied as exaggerated and includes sums that appear to be an attempt at double recovery."

The rest is good. Important to mention the Equality Act 2010.