10p didnt register now rec'd court papers

Loadsofchildren123

Also, I haven't looked up the rule to remind myself what the exact wording is, but what it says is if an order mentions nothing about costs then the legal presumption is there is "no order" (meaning you each pay your own). So if you don't raise costs now then the issue of costs will be disposed of in the Order discontinuing the claim. So there will be no outstanding claim to costs full stop.
The only way of claiming costs of proceedings is within those proceedings.

If the judge won't deal with it on paper then I completely agree there is little point paying an application fee and you'd be better to let it go. But personally I'd be tempted to at least try with a letter.

It won't take much effort to combine henrik's suggested letter with some of the points in my document. I think to have any chance of success you must demonstrate the conduct you say is unreasonable with reference to the court rules they've broken.

henrik777

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Also, I haven't looked up the rule to remind myself what the exact wording is, but what it says is if an order mentions nothing about costs then the legal presumption is there is "no order" (meaning you each pay your own). So if you don't raise costs now then the issue of costs will be disposed of in the Order discontinuing the claim. So there will be no outstanding claim to costs full stop.
The only way of claiming costs of proceedings is within those proceedings.

If the judge won't deal with it on paper then I completely agree there is little point paying an application fee and you'd be better to let it go. But personally I'd be tempted to at least try with a letter.

It won't take much effort to combine henrik's suggested letter with some of the points in my document. I think to have any chance of success you must demonstrate the conduct you say is unreasonable with reference to the court rules they've broken.

A notice of discontinuance doesn't come from the Judge and is not an order of the court.

Loadsofchildren123

henrik777 wrote: »

A notice of discontinuance doesn't come from the Judge and is not an order of the court.

Agreed, but the discontinuance then takes effect (unless you apply to set it aside) - so if you follow through the logic of the rules (which aren't always so logical) then if a discontinuance takes effect with no costs order being made, wouldn't it be deemed (after the 28 days has run out for setting it aside) that each party must pay their own (in the same way that where an actual order is silent on costs each party pays their own)?


The actual point here is that unless the OP applies for costs within these proceedings, then there can be no later claim.

henrik777

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Agreed, but the discontinuance then takes effect (unless you apply to set it aside) - so if you follow through the logic of the rules (which aren't always so logical) then if a discontinuance takes effect with no costs order being made, wouldn't it be deemed (after the 28 days has run out for setting it aside) that each party must pay their own (in the same way that where an actual order is silent on costs each party pays their own)?


The actual point here is that unless the OP applies for costs within these proceedings, then there can be no later claim.

There will never be a costs order for a notice of discontinuance. The claimant, the ones who issue such a notice, would be pretty stupid to add something like "and the claimant must pay £100 costs to the defendant" and even if they did it wouldn't be binding.

Only a court can order costs. You can try and cheat the system by sending a letter or use the system and make an application which most people need to pay for.

Loadsofchildren123

I think the consensus is to write in and have a go, but if it doesn't work to let it go because you'd have to issue an application which will cost you £255.... which you might not win.
You have nothing to lose writing the letter and asking, but you need to set out why there should be a costs order under 27.14(2)(g) so must demonstrate the unreasonable conduct, both pre- and post-proceedings. Put in reference to those cases I mentioned in my document.

rk4406

Hello all,

As much as i want to make them pay and claim for costs, im just happy that its all over and resolved. I have too much going on at the moment to pursue this, after the relief of the discontinuance of the claim (the official letter came today from the court) i am happy to let things lie now.

I hope you all dont mind and aren't disappointed that im not following this through.
Thank you all for your help - peace out!

Coupon-mad

We quite understand! Your case will help others, that's enough. And you have 6 years if ever you fancy suing.

Roseyboy

I hope you don't mind asking but did this happen in the Smyth Street car park by any chance?

If so my wife had exactly the same issue in Feb this year. She paid for 4-8 hours of parking (cost £4.50), She noticed that the last 10 pence didn't register so put in another 10 pence....and guess what...it didn't register. She got her ticket but it only showed £4.40. She was traveling in a group and two of the others also had issues with the machines - one had a pound coin that failed to register and the other had another 10 pence that didn't.

One of them rang the help line and reported the issues to the operator and informed them that 'others were also having problems'. The operator said that they would send an engineer but that was it...they didn't ask for any of the other car's details.

Then 2 weeks later a PCN letter arrived inviting my wife to part with £100 for the privilege of their machines not working correctly. We appealed to Excel, it was rejected and now we are going through IAS......but I'm not holding my breath.

Interestingly the ticket she was issued was for 6 hours but this is not a parking period listed on their tariff board.

As far as I can see Excel Parking / VCS are in 'Breach of Contract' as their offer was accepted and paid in full - it was their equipment and systems that failed.

The_Deep

You could always counter claim for the overpayment if you lose the appeal and they issue a claim.

StuK

Hi all, I!!!8217;m new to the forum, but after a bit of a trawl, the circumstances concerning my PCN seem similar to that of the OP.

I paid £3.50 for all day parking at a Britannia car park in Milton Keynes, I received a PCN by post, which I thought must be erroneous as I knew I had paid for all day parking. Fortunately I still had my parking ticket in the car, so I scanned it and included it in my appeal to the PCN. I didn!!!8217;t seek any advice from this forum at that time as I believed it was a simple error made by the parking company. Therefore I wasn!!!8217;t sufficiently informed so as to not admit that it was me that had parked in the car park and paid for the parking.

It was only when I received the rejection of my appeal from Britannia that I discovered that they believed I had only paid for 3 hours parking and I had, in fact stayed for 5 hours. The tariff for 3 hours parking was £1.20 and the tariff for all day parking was £3.50. My ticket shows that I paid £3.00. I therefore assume that the ticket machine hadn!!!8217;t accepted my 50p, which I clearly didn!!!8217;t realise at the time.

I appealed to POPLA, stating that it must be reasonable to assume that I hadn!!!8217;t intended to try to avoid paying 50p in order to extend my parking by 2 hours and that this was obviously a genuine mistake. I also said that I would be happy to pay the missing 50p, but that a fine of £100 was disproportionate. I was pretty confident that common sense would prevail and that my appeal would be upheld.

Yesterday I received news that POPLA had rejected my appeal. Below is a copy of their findings:

!!!8220;Decision
Successful Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Xxxxx xxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator!!!8217;s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to failure to make a valid payment.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant!!!8217;s case is that they paid £3.50 for all day parking. The appellant has advised that they did not realise that the machine had only taken £3.00, and they did not think to check the expiry of the ticket as they thought they had paid for the whole day. The appellant has advised that the PCN amount is not proportionate. The appellant has provided photographic evidence of the ticket purchased.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site are, !!!8220;Tariffs Up to 3 hours £1.20, All day £3.50. A £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: Fail to make correct payment!!!8221;. The site operates an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) System. The operator has provided photographic images of the appellants vehicle captured entering at 09:58, and exiting at 15:00. The photographic images of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle provided confirm that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was on site for five hours two minutes. The operator issued a PCN due to failure to make a valid payment. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that they paid £3.50 for all day parking. The appellant has advised that they did not realise that the machine had only taken £3.00, and they did not think to check the expiry of the ticket as they thought they had paid for the whole day. The appellant has advised that the PCN amount is not proportionate. The appellant has provided photographic evidence of the ticket purchased. The operator has provided a system generated printout from this I can see the appellant has made a payment for three hours parking at 10:02 While I appreciate the appellant!!!8217;s comments that they purchased parking, the parking tariffs that are displayed within the car park are not negotiable, and are offered as part of the parking contract. In order to park for five hours two minutes the appellant would be required to purchase parking at a tariff of £3.50. I note the appellant has made a payment for £3.00 and that the appellant has advised that they were not aware the machine had not accepted the additional £0.50 they entered. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to disprove that provided by the operator I am unable to confirm the appellant had paid for the full duration of the stay. When parking on private land, a motorist forms a contract with the operator by parking their vehicle on the site. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the site. In this case, as the appellant has parked without making a payment for the full duration of parking, the terms and conditions of the contract have not been met. As such, I conclude that on this occasion the operator has issued the PCN correctly.!!!8221;

I am astounded at this decision and frustrated that there doesn!!!8217;t seem to be any recourse for further appeal. I don!!!8217;t intend pay the £100 fine, mainly on principle.

I would appreciate advice that anyone can give me on this, but it would seem from the other cases I have read about I should sit tight and wait to receive payment demands. I understand that I can respond to these, but shouldn!!!8217;t pay, although I am unclear as to whether it is advisable to offer to pay the missing 50p. It would seem that this may end up listed for court proceedings, but I should still sit tight and hope that common sense will prevail before this ends up in court.