Fine for Paid Parking Ticket - HX Car Park

Sorry - could I have replies to these because I'm writing up my defences and I'd like the expert thoughts:
- To date, I have been careful not to shoot myself in the foot by claiming liability, etc. In my defence however, must I outline the sequence of events to prove my honesty, or can I provide information as a hypothetical?
- Should I name the driver?
- If events of the day pertain to the reason the PCN was issued, can/should I share these here to garner the best advice in how to word it in legalise?

Thanks again.

Day date for me and the wife
What could be an exhibit (videos/photos of what)?
I don't have the parking ticket but I'm assuming that the SAR will reveal data from their parking machine which I can submit?

OK, in short, a ticket was displayed by driver but PCN issued to keeper for staying beyond grace period (by 2 minutes). Evidence on original PCN is image showing car entering and exiting parking area. Can an argument be made that the conditions outline PARKING time and not DRIVING time?

I know I'm being vague, but I'm unsure as to how much I should outline here.

Awaiting SAR and taken photos and video footage of signage etc to supply as exhibits.

Driver providing witness statement of events on day. I am providing same, in capacity of keeper (was nowhere near car/car park on day and can probably prove it)?

I'm having trouble gathering legal arguments for my DS. So far, I have culled it to expand on the following:
1 - signage and contract
2 - driver's statement of events outlining how parking was NOT beyond parking time and grace period and pertinent rulings

I'm not sure what else I can, sensibly, include.

My defense, such as it is.
As advised, I checked the links above, and the links they advised too, and hopefully created a coherent DS. Many people have written LOTS but I just couldn't think of anything more. As it is, I'm sure the following will need to be edited. Any advice greatly appreciated!

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that a ticket was purchased at xx:xx on the material date for the vehicle to be parked on the land for a total of 2 (two) hours until xx:xx:xx.

3. An ANPR capture of the vehicle provided as evidence for the PCN shows entry at xx:xx:xx and exit at xx:xx:xx on the material date.

4. The PCN states that the notice relates to the ‘period of parking’ – the evidence shows the vehicle as it is entering and exiting, and NOT in parking conditions, i,e. in a stationary position, parked within a parking bay.

5. The signage in the car park is at a height that is not easily visible for a short person – the photographic evidence was taken by the driver, who is 5ft 2in tall. It is evident that some effort must be made to read the terms in its entirety.

6. The signage informs drivers that they must purchase a ticket for parking and does not make clear that the charges are for navigating the space when entering and exiting.

7. The terms for BPA signage is clear that drivers are to be provided with a sufficient grace period during which to meet the conditions of the parking service both before and after the payment period.

8. The grace period provided to drivers should take into account any and all situations that could prevent a user from leaving at the exact expiry time. This includes, but is not limited to: mobility, the presence (and therefore safety) of children and the conditions of driving within the car park. The Claimant does not outline a grace period after the expiry of the paid time.

9. The driver has outlined in their witness statement that, on the material date, a young child was present. By necessity, the driver was responsible for ensuring that the child was secured in the vehicle safely, and all child-associated paraphernalia stored away.

10. In addition, the driving conditions of the car park are not easily navigated – the video evidence provided show the repeat manoeuvring required to navigate an exit from the car park.

11. The Keeper therefore states that the additional time beyond the paid time – a total of 12 minutes and 12 seconds - was used to secure a minor into the vehicle per the legal requirements and guidelines of the law and to safely exit the car park without posing a risk or causing harm to other users.

12. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

14. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date