Entered wrong VRM and received a Claim form

greystones13

In March 2017 I accompanied my son to a car park in birmingham which requires a VRM to be submitted. In error I must have put the wrong digits in as a month later he started getting demands for money owed for parking from ECS.

He has ignored all letters as her felt he had paid for parking and it was a mistake on there behalf. He has now received a county court claim for £185. As I must have incorrectly put in his vrm will be defending the matter. I have completed the on line acknowedgement and am in process of writing a defence.

I have seen robathandr thread (forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5733071) but unlike him I did not reply to the letter before claim or have the ticket. I did pay and either I put the vrm in wrong or the machine was faulty. I obviously need to find out why ECS didnt check similar vrms paid for slightly before my our departure and also maintenance records for the machine because this isnt right.

Should I contact them formally to find maintenace records of the machine, the checks they made, cctv etc. I really dont want to waste the courts time. Or should i just just outline them in my defence submission?

Coupon-mad

I obviously need to find out why ECS didnt check similar vrms paid for slightly before my our departure and also maintenance records for the machine because this isnt right.

You won't get any of that at this stage, no point contacting Gladstones (I assume they are doing this?). Who are ECS, full name please?

Should I contact them formally to find maintenance records of the machine, the checks they made, cctv etc.

Nope.

I really dont want to waste the courts time. Or should i just just outline them in my defence submission?

Yes.

And show us your draft, based on other Gladstones ones. Search for Gladstones claim and read LOADS of defences.

Quentin

greystones13 wrote: »

........ the I have completed the on line acknowedgement and am in process of writing a defence.

You say the driver received the claim.

If that's the case the driver should defend it.

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread.

Go there now for advice on defending a court claim which is covered in #2 of the thread

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving.

You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

greystones13

My son is the registered keeper and it was sent to him. He was unable to reply to the letter before claim form or this claim for as he is in royal navy and currently in the med. The claim is from Vehicle control services litigation dept.The ticket relates to albert street car park in Birmingham.I will defend this on his behalf.

[Deleted User]

I will defend this on his behalf.

That's nice and indeed you may be able to do much of the paperwork on his behalf, but remember that certain aspects of this are regulated activities. That means that whilst you are not the named Defendant:

1. The Defence needs to bear his signature on the statement of truth;
2. Ideally he will do a witness statement, but one from you will probably suffice to make plain the facts;
3. You will not be permitted to speak on his behalf at Court unless he is physically present in the court room and the Court is content for you to do so - remember that when completing the dates of availability.

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And show us your draft, based on other Gladstones ones. Search for Gladstones claim and read LOADS of defences.

Though don't just copy'n'paste without thought. Your defence will be slightly different from many, because payment was made for a pay-per-hour car park. This means

• Beavis does not apply. The Court of Appeal explicity excluded this type of car park, stating it would be "perverse" to impose such a charge (e.g. £100) for a minor indiscretion when the hourly charge was small in comparison. Further, Beavis was upheld because the (large) charge was there to deter overstaying, which is not the case here.
• With the penal nature of this charge established, what are the actual losses to VCS. Oh, look, it's zero, becuase they received payment. They may claim that the Tc&Cs were breached by entering an incorrect VRM, but that does not allow them to impose a huge charge (see above point).

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas