I am not editing the last post so that the attachments dont disappear!
Is the below defence any better? Am I still risking identifying myself as the driver?
Defence
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to plead the Claimant's case with sufficient particularity. They do not identify the contractual terms relied upon, how they were allegedly accepted, nor the legal basis upon which the Defendant is said to be liable. The Defendant is therefore unable to plead to matters which have not been properly particularised and the Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of its claim.
3. It is admitted only that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Save as expressly admitted, the allegations are denied.
4. The Claimant alleges that the parking charge arose because "Payment not made / permit not obtained in accordance with notified terms". The Defendant denies that any enforceable contractual liability arose.
5. The signage at the location prominently advertised "Phone and Pay Public Parking" together with parking tariffs. The restriction upon which the Claimant now relies was not given equivalent prominence. Taken as a whole, the signage was capable of conveying to a reasonable motorist that parking was available through the advertised payment system.
6. The Defendant is in possession of contemporaneous records demonstrating that, on the day before the alleged parking event, the Claimant's nominated payment system generated a completed parking receipt for the same location, vehicle registration and location code showing a parking charge of £0.00. The Defendant also possesses receipts showing that, on other occasions at the same location, parking charges were successfully paid where payment was required.
7. Those records are consistent with the payment system presenting differing charging arrangements depending upon the circumstances and demonstrate that the Defendant had every reason to understand that the advertised payment system was the correct means of complying with the parking terms.
8. The Defendant subsequently revisited the location and observed that, prior to the Claimant changing parking providers, the same location code continued to present a parking session with a parking charge of £0.00. The Defendant does not know why the Claimant's chosen payment system produced that result. That is a matter within the Claimant's knowledge. If the Claimant's case is that no parking could be purchased during the relevant period, it is put to strict proof that its payment system clearly communicated that fact to motorists using the payment method advertised on its own signage.
9. Following receipt of the Parking Charge Notice, the Defendant attended the premises and was directed by a retailer to the building reception. A member of reception staff took the Defendant's details and stated that the Parking Charge Notice would be cancelled. Upon later receiving further correspondence from the Claimant, the Defendant returned to the premises and was informed by the reception manager that the cancellation had not been processed and that it was then too late to do so. The Defendant will give evidence of those events.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that:
(a) the signage adequately communicated the contractual terms relied upon;
(b) the payment system clearly informed motorists when parking was unavailable or that a permit was required;
(c) the Claimant had authority from the landowner to enter contracts and pursue this claim.
11. This matter is readily distinguishable from *ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis* [2015] UKSC 67. The issues in this case concern the adequacy of the contractual notice, the operation of the Claimant's chosen payment system, and whether any contractual obligation was clearly communicated to motorists.
12. In the circumstances, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has established any entitlement to the sum claimed and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.
