Court claim deadline tomorrow

. Only if the Defendant was not. No lies, only ''deny'' if that is true.

'Denying' is not the same as not saying who was driving (the latter being OK).

I haven't denied or admitted her being the driver in the defence as yet to clarify I didnt mean lie I meant not confirm either way . . Have you had a chance to view my second draft, any comments?

Lamilad wrote: »

In post #11 I told that 5(c)(i) didn't make sense. Now it's 5(c)(ii).... Either reword or remove it.

You need to look at grammar and layout:
Para 8 is leading yet (b) does not flow.


This is a civil matter. You have not been issued with a "fine" and no "offence" has been committed.


Your defence is talking to the court not the claimant.


"from by"????
"Authorized" > 'Authorised'

You say it's an unfair contract yet elsewhere you say no contract has been formed. Stay consistent!

I have updated to the below, Im trying to get across there was no signs where the car was parked, on the opposite side there was a sign that is barely legible when entering the road and another hidden in a bush 100 meters away on same side of road and secondly no ntk or other letters were received


5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is to put strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(ii) Sporadic and illegible no signage at site/entrance (signage only on one side and hidden in bush) breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; there is therefore no contract, agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from a party using the premises as intended.

(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font, size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed that the claimant do not hold a legitimate contract at this venue. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to inform the defendant of the original parking fine, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.