fluttering ticket going to court

System

I also think if it gets as far where a costs schedule is required I will seriously consider pushing for punitive costs as per 27.14(2)(g)

The law works both ways with regards to 27.14(2)(g)

The_Deep

The law works both ways with regards to 27.14(2)(g)


Perhaps, but with our advice, very few motorists could be accused of unreasonable behaviour.

Lamilad

2. The Defendant appealed the postal Parking Charge Notice on the XX/XX/XXXX explaining what had happened and included a copy of the ticket displayed on the day. This gave the opportunity for the Claimant to cancel the charge. A response from the Claimant was never received.

I would reword:

"2. The Defendant appealed the Parking Charge Notice ("PCN")on the XX/XX/XXXX explaining what had happened and included a copy of the ticket displayed on the day providing the claimant with clear evidence that the defendant had acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and conditions ("T&C") - as far as they were understood.

2.1 This was an opportunity for the claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

2.2 Not only was the charge not cancelled but the appeal was not acknowledged by the claimant and no response was received

2.3 The above constitutes a direct breach of Practice Direction -pre-action conduct and protocols; specifically - paragraph 3 (Objectives), and 8 (Settlement and ADR). As such the court's attention is drawn to paragraphs 13 - 16.

2.4 The above is also a direct breach of the International Parking Community ("IPC") Code of Practice ("CoP"), Part B, Section 6. The CoP is effectively regulation for the private parking industry, as found by the supreme court judges in the Beavis Case

claxtome

I am not au fait with the Data Protection Act in detail but was wondering if I should add a 'DPA breach' sections as I ran with in my sister thread - what do you think?

The main reason is no advertising consent but I bet there are other reasons people can think of.

The paragraph I used was->

Data Protection Act breach
For the reasons set out already, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them, and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves his rights in respect of these matters.

Lamilad

Any DPA breach is a separate matter and has no bearing on this case.

Lamilad

5.7 It is not disputed that the ticket gave the Defendant a licence to park for the entire day[STRIKE], from 09:MMam on XX/XX/17, covering the time and date relating to the disputed charge.[/STRIKE] The ticket was [STRIKE]purchased and was[/STRIKE] displayed on the dashboard at all times. [STRIKE]which[/STRIKE] This will be demonstrated by the Claimant’s own evidence.

Lamilad

6. Whilst there was a limited contract which was concluded at the pay and display machine, the only sums of money in large lettering at the ‘point of sale’ were the parking tariffs, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the notices on/at the pay and display machine.

I'm not sure about this para. It's not clear what you're trying to say. It doesn't really dispute anything and it doesn't say exactly what you're holding them to "strict proof" on regarding the "notices"

I think I would remove it.

Castle

Claxtome:

Was there a VAT number on the pay and display ticket?

claxtome

Castle there is no VAT number on the ticket.

Lamilad

In not responding to the Defendants requests for information, the Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim

You haven't said anything in previous paras about a request for information that want responded to do this doesn't sound right

Re: paras 7 - 7.4... you don't need five paras to say the claimant has no locus standi. Most defences say this in one.

You can refer to those cases without explaining them in great detail. There's also lots of repetition.

7.3 definitely doesn't sound right at the end.