Help and guidance please

Capt_Mainwaring

As I ramp up my research, I find that the PoC from BW confirms my suspicions about the parking machines and I quote - 'The Claimant's data extracted from the PDT machines/terminals within the Gym (annexed) indicate no ticket/VRM matching the Defendant's Vehicle registration number was purchased or input at the touch screen terminals located in the Gym'.


So, unless the driver went in to the Gym on the date of the alleged contravention, there would have been no accessible machine available to have bought a ticket from!


Do Excel assume every visitor to this car park goes to the Gym? Why haven't they provided data from the other machines to strengthen their argument? Is it because they weren't working and this is the only evidence they have?


I've just re-read the response from Excel regarding the appeal for an earlier PCN (claim subsequently struck out) and they advised that - 'there are 3 machines situated on the site at Cavendish Retail Park, therefore the other machine could have been utilised'. As there response is in the singular, rather than the plural, I take this as an admission that they were fully aware that 2 of the 3 machines were not working.


Is this worth including in my WS or will they just counter with T&Cs of the signage and using other available payment methods?

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi


I've written a couple of meaty paragraphs about the above. I hope I haven't wasted my time. Can someone give me some advice on it?



I've got until next Wednesday to submit my WS. I was hoping to upload it on to here shortly, to give you guys as much time as possible to read it and to confirm any amends.


Thanks

Coupon-mad

Show us what you have written. Gives us something to work with.

Capt_Mainwaring

As you insist!


There are several photos of Cavendish Retail Park car park in the Claimants Particulars of Claim (PoC). These photos are dated 3/2/2016 and 26/4/2015. These photos do not reflect the car park at the time of the alleged contravention, on 9 June 2017.



The Claimant confirmed in a letter to me on 21 June 2017 (Exhibit 6) that there are three pay and display (PDT) machines situated in the car park. The location of two of these machines is pinpointed in an overhead map of the car park that the Claimant has also submitted as evidence in their PoC. Their outdated photos show two PDTs together (near the entrance/exit). The other location is near to the Sports Direct store. However, the Claimant then contradicts themselves in their PoC, when they confirm that there was a PDT inside the Sports Direct Gym. The location of this machine is not pinpointed on their map.


The Claimant has also provided 13 pages of data from the PDT inside the Sports Direct Gym. The Claimant has confirmed that their PDT machine/terminal indicates that no ticket/Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) matching my car!!!8217;s registration number was purchased or input at the touch screen terminals located in the Gym. I can confirm that no one who is insured to drive my car is or has ever been a member of this Gym. There was no clear signage in the car park to confirm the location of a third PDT inside the Gym. I believe that only members of that Gym would have been aware that a PDT was located inside. From the knowledge I have of this car park, based on my previous visits to it, I wasn!!!8217;t aware of the location of a third PDT and as no one insured to drive my car was a member of that Gym (and as far as I am aware, has never set foot inside of it), the driver on the day of the alleged contravention would not have had access to pay at that machine, which appears to have been the only PDT in operation that day. If this was not the case, then why has the Claimant not provided data extractions from their other machines in with their PoC?


The two PDTs situated in the car park were out of action for some time during 2017. I know this to be true, as I have already confirmed to the Claimant that I was driving my wife!!!8217;s car on 13 May 2017. I returned to this car park after my wife received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice To Keeper (NTK) which was issued by Excel on 31 May 2017. I took several photos of the PDTs and signs in the car park, which I used to submit an appeal to Excel. I emailed my appeal to Excel on 7 June 2017, two days before the alleged contravention took place. I can confirm that there were only two PDTs in that car park at that time and both were still out of order.

System

@Captain

Where there is a "frustration" such as a machine not working, it will be the wording on the signs that will be relevant. AFAIK there is a "Helpline" number on the signs. Did anyone call it?

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi IamEmanresu


AFAIK, the helpline number was never called.

Coupon-mad

Maybe it was never seen?

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi CM


Well, the signage contains so much info that I wouldn't be surprised if it had been missed.


My deadline for submission of the WS is one week from today. I was hoping to have had it completed and uploaded today. Sadly, I've been as sick as a dog for the last two days, so I'll have to work on it on my day off on Friday, as I'm busy this evening and tomorrow night.

Loadsofchildren123

cross refer in your WS to the paragraph numbers of their WS. And in your last para, make it clearer that the issue with your wife was for a completely different pcn to the one with which this claim is concerned. You should also specifically quote the bit you were talking about and then say "this is clearly an admission that two of the machines were not working (and as these two were the two in the actual carpark, the driver clearly had no means of paying, and no means of knowing about the third machine inside the gym).

Capt_Mainwaring

Brilliant Loadsofchildren.


I've incorporated your suggestion in to my WS, which is nearly finished.