Gladstone Brook County Court Claim - Defence Advice

[Nate89]

£170-£200 on top of the original fine?

[ostell]

No, Total

[Nate89]

It is Cuerden Valley car park in Preston and Minister Baywatch are claiming against me yet on the Pay and Display machine at the car park it states managed by Bransby Wilson. There are however some signs around the outside of the car park that display a very small Minister Baywatch logo.

[Nate89]

No, Total

The fine is already £234.93 so surely they will add more on to that won't they? Sorry I don't know how any of it works...

[Nate89]

It is Cuerden Valley car park in Preston and Minister Baywatch are claiming against me yet on the Pay and Display machine at the car park it states managed by Bransby Wilson. There are however some signs around the outside of the car park that display a very small Minister Baywatch logo.

[Nate89]

Here is what I have wrote so far if you have any time to review. I still have a few days before I need to submit yet. Once again, thanks so far...

Claim No: XXXXXX

Claimant: Minster Baywatch Ltd

Defendant: XXXXXX

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant received the claim XXXXXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 20^th December 2020.

2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3. After carefully examining the signage in the car park, it would appear the claimant cannot be Minster Baywatch, as the text clearly states the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, therefore the defendant has no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against the defendant for no reason at all.
[Images of car park signage available upon request]

4 (a). The defendant paid for a ticket which clearly meets the contract criteria visible at the pay and display machine which only states to purchase a valid ticket. There is no mention of what is deemed a valid ticket or of any time constraints, therefore the defendant met their part of the contract as they have a valid parking ticket for the date they were there.
[Image of paid ticket available upon request]

4 (b) (i). Even though the contract does not state this therefore the defendant cannot be penalised, the defendant can only assume you are pursuing them for over staying on their paid 2-hour ticket by 15-minutes even though the defendant was back at their vehicle within the allotted 2-hour time frame.

4 (b) (ii). Due to the busy nature of the car park that day, as well as with strict COVID19 measures in place and social distancing to respect, entering the car park and waiting for a free space took 12-minutes (which you can see from the defendants paid parking ticket) and waiting to exit the car park took roughly the same amount of time. Both on entry and exit to the car park, this was due to a back log of traffic, stationary cars blocking parked cars in bays, and large volumes of people waiting to get back in to their vehicles due to sanitising and social distancing clogging up the car park (the busy nature of the car park is clearly visible from the CCTV snapshot on the defendants parking ticket).

4 (c) (iii). A witness statement from an associates of the defendants who also drove and parked on the same date at the same time yet the claimant has chosen not to pursue backs the defendants claim, that the car park was unusually busier than usual, taking them 15-minutes also to exit the car park due to heavy traffic, stationary vehicles queued in front of occupied bays, and large amounts of pedestrians due to families taking longer getting back into their vehicles due to sanitising and social distancing.
[Reg number and witness statement available upon request]

4 (c) (iiii). The charge of £100 for an overstay of 15-minutes is not a fair and reasonable amount to request in comparison to the original fee being just £1.50 for 2 hours.

5. The defendant has contacted the land manager of the car park who agrees that the defendant should not have to pay the fine since the defendant had a valid parking ticket, and agrees that the busy nature of the car park that day was out of the defendants control. The land manager has tried to help the defendant appeal the case with the claimant and the claimant’s solicitors however they are yet to respond. Therefore, the defendant is unsure why the claimant is still pursuing the defendant even though the land owner has asked them not to.

6. The defendant asks the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness asks for all incurred costs to be covered.


The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed ________________________________

Dated ________________________________

[ostell]

So how is that £234 broken down?

[Nate89]

The letter says -

£95 PCN
£60 Contractual costs
£4.93 Interest
£25 Court Fee
£50 Legal representative's costs

[ostell]

Has that £60 ever appeared as legal costs in other paperwork?

3) what name appeared on the payment machine? If it was Bransby Wilson then mention that as the payment created the contract. Lose the for no reason at all. Lose the images available. That comes later

There is a court case at Fistral Beach that says driving around is not parking . Haven't got the reference at the moment


4 c XIII lose it

[Nate89]

The last letter from Minister states the fine is £100 with £55 now added for the notice being passed passed to an internal collections team and then the letter from Gladstone's states that the fine is £95 with £60 added on due to a clause in contract so they have mentioned but the amounts are conflicting?

[Nate89]

By 4 c XIII do you mean this part - The charge of £100 for an overstay of 15-minutes is not a fair and reasonable amount to request in comparison to the original fee being just £1.50 for 2 hours.

[Nate89]

Hello again, I have followed your advice and tweaked if you are able to check again please? I also wondered wether you saw my replies yesterday? Thank you

Claim No: XXX

Claimant: Minster Baywatch Ltd

Defendant: XXX

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant received the claim XXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 20^th December 2020.

2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3 (a). After carefully examining the signage in the car park, it would appear the claimant cannot be Minster Baywatch, as the text clearly states the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, therefore the defendant has no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against the defendant.

3 (b). After carefully examining the signage at the payment machine on the car park it clearly states that Bransby Wilson manage the car park and that the contract is with them. The defendants payment to this machine therefore created a contract with Bransby Wilson, further proving that the defendant has no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against the defendant.

4 (a). The defendant paid for a ticket which clearly meets the contract criteria visible at the pay and display machine which only states to purchase a valid ticket. There is no mention of what is deemed a valid ticket or of any time constraints, therefore the defendant met their part of the contract as they have a valid parking ticket for the date they were there.
[Image of paid ticket available upon request]

4 (b) (i). Even though the contract does not state this therefore the defendant cannot be penalised, the defendant can only assume you are pursuing them for over staying on their paid 2-hour ticket by 15-minutes even though the defendant was back at their vehicle within the allotted 2-hour time frame.

4 (b) (ii). Due to the busy nature of the car park that day, as well as with strict COVID19 measures in place and social distancing to respect, entering the car park and waiting for a free space took 12-minutes (which you can see from the defendants paid parking ticket) and waiting to exit the car park took roughly the same amount of time. Both on entry and exit to the car park, this was due to a back log of traffic, stationary cars blocking parked cars in bays, and large volumes of people waiting to get back in to their vehicles due to sanitising and social distancing clogging up the car park (the busy nature of the car park is clearly visible from the CCTV snapshot on the defendants parking ticket).

4 (c) (iii). A witness statement from an associate of the defendants who also drove and parked on the same date at the same time yet the claimant has chosen not to pursue backs the defendants claim, that the car park was unusually busier than usual, taking them 15-minutes also to exit the car park due to heavy traffic, stationary vehicles queued in front of occupied bays, and large amounts of pedestrians due to families taking longer getting back into their vehicles due to sanitising and social distancing.
[Reg number and witness statement available upon request]

5. The defendant has contacted the land manager of the car park who agrees that the defendant should not have to pay the fine since the defendant had a valid parking ticket, and agrees that the busy nature of the car park that day was out of the defendants control. The land manager has tried to help the defendant appeal the case with the claimant and the claimant’s solicitors however they are yet to respond. Therefore, the defendant is unsure why the claimant is still pursuing the defendant even though the land owner has asked them not to.

6. There is also no period of parking required by 9 (2) (a). Moving in front of a camera cannot by definition be parking.

7. The defendant asks the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness asks for all incurred costs to be covered.


The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed ________________________________

Dated ________________________________

[Nate89]

Also after your note about Fistral Beach I just copied bullet point 6 from another template but unsure what the numbers represent? Should I remove them?