Defence advice in my first court case (v. DCBL)

Coupon-mad

As well as adding to the end of para 2 'but not the driver' (if the Defendant isn't that pregnant woman), add this to the end of para 3:

This had all been explained in the defendant’s appeal, which the claimant refused with a template response. However, the crux of the matter is that neither the signage nor the website put a time limit on making payment for parking, and given it was not possible to pay any earlier, the fact is that the contract was concluded and the stay paid for as soon as the website was working after the event. The Defendant should not be punished for the driver's good faith conduct of making all possible endeavours to pay, and ultimately doing so well before the postal PCN was drawn up and issued.

Morus

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82178904#Comment_82178904

Gotcha, that does makes sense Gr1pr. Not sure how I missed that sorry.

Also thank you Coupon-mad that is such an excellent summary of why this PCN feels so particularly unfair to me.

Revised paragraphs below:

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied completely. 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 driver (a pregnant mother accompanied by her 3 little children) had attempted to pay for parking on the 25th of November but was unable to do so because the claimant’s website failed to work. A payment of £3.20 was made on the 26th of November for a stay on the 27th of November (since the website only allows payments for future stays) for the same duration as the vehicle had stayed on the 25th of November. Naturally, the vehicle had not entered the car park on the 27th of November. This had all been explained in the defendant’s appeal, which the claimant refused with a template response. However, the crux of the matter is that neither the signage nor the website put a time limit on making payment for parking, and given it was not possible to pay any earlier, the fact is that the contract was concluded and the stay paid for as soon as the website was working after the event. The Defendant should not be punished for the driver's good faith conduct of making all possible endeavours to pay, and ultimately doing so well before the postal PCN was drawn up and issued.

I will check that this doesn't contradict anything else and the defence is a coherent whole and submit it tomorrow.

Appreciate your support, will let you know the outcome.

Gr1pr

There won't be an outcome until sometime next year ! Plenty of things to do beforehand, so once you have submitted the defence, study the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum and then study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements too

Read a few cases ahead of yours until you understand the full process going forward, because submitting your defence is early on in the first half of the game , and the 2nd half is at a different venue with more work involved