Jump to content

Browntrout

Registered Users no pm
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Browntrout

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry that simply doesnt make sense. You cant leave things out of a defence for "it only gives them a greater understanding of what you know.." that really is not true at all. You cant hijack claimants or defendants (although you can subtly expand on a defence in a witness statement) Dx100 people with actual court experience and legally qualified posters on other forums (so either Cilex members or actual solicitors) would completely disagree with you on the above It is all very well putting very simply defences together on here but it is another to present them in a court in front of a judge who will rip it apart in no time. Even though a defence such as the above may be based on keeper liability you should not put your eggs into one basket and this applies to every case. Remember what you miss out now you cant add later. Better to have a judge dismiss those points then not have them in there at all.
  2. Ericsbrother i agree a defence does not need to be war and peace but a two line defence like that would most likely have got struck out after allocation They have at least put in a more detailed defence now so can only wish them well. Cases that are read at Northampton are those where jurisdiction is challenged and a £100 fee is payable for a paper hearing
  3. The OP has now submitted their defence after taking advice on another parking forum, they have looked at defences which have been done by a legally qualified poster (CILEX registered,and a law degree and well known and respected in the "parking industry) after being advised that the defence they suggested posting on its own was told it was a loosing defence. Lets hope they end up winning their case.
  4. And what is your suggestion if the defence is struck out? There is no reponse at all to the parking event at all. Judges do no like technically defences these days
  5. If that is all you are going to submit and you havent missed anything out i would suggest that defence will get struck out once past allocation as it offers no prospect of success. Not suggesting you put waffle in but you need more substantive grounds
  6. The signs at this site are NOT unlawful. Time to move on from that argument
  7. This a red herring in my opinion and clutching at straws, it is not my view a successful basis for defending a claim (the latter). You would struggle to get most DJ's to accept that argument. The only basis i believe on which D can win here is contractual issues between the landowner/agent/occupier etc etc
  8. Lack of planning consent is not illegal , (ie no criminal offence) it is a civil issue. Where as lack of advertising consent is a criminal offence in itself. The only time planning consent goes in to the realms of a criminal offence is when a relevant party fails to comply with a planning enforcement notice
  9. Number 2 has no relevance to the ability of a claimaint to enter a contract with a driver, so remove it. I have no idea why D's put this in defences, it makes no material difference People on forums seem to confuse planning consent with advertising consent which if not in place is an issue for a claimaint
  10. No i am not getting it confused at all! There are VCS Court claims every week and there has been a swell of 2015 cases within the last 2 months In 2015 VCS PCNs did not comply with POFA in any sense of the word, so it forms part of a good defence for the non driver.
  11. Quite simply the Notice to keepers used in 2015 by vcs did not have the correct wording in order to enforce keeper liability against a non driver. They did not comply with the provisions of POFA schedule 4
  12. The number of witnesses is litterally there to guide the court for hearng time. The likelyhood of vcs dropping the claim is very very low. I appeciate users on this forum and others say they drop them but this is rare. I would say i see around 1 in 50 claims discontinued where as the likes of parking eye drop around 1 in 15 cases So expect a hearing
×
×
  • Create New...