Incomplete vrn entered

Coupon-mad

Any idea when that happened?

What date photo do you have of that machine without that added top section?

Pjr1525 wrote: »

I've tried to get in all the points that I consider important, so that I can expand on them in my witness statement. The majority of the defence was lifted from bargepole’s post, I've tried to make it relevant to my own case, but not sure if I've got it right, some of the points got away from me a bit. I would appreciate any pointers. Regards.

Looks good to me!

A few suggestions, just extra numbering needed, as shown here for 'split' paragraphs pertaining to the same point of defence, and to include the fact that a 'wrong VRN' could be a key failure, not always human error!

2.the facts are that the vehicle xxxx xxx of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date correctly and that a ticket was purchased and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment was supplied to the claimant in the form of the parking ticket.

2.1. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and sufficient VRN was entered to positively identify the vehicle in question.

2.2. The Claimant’s website states that they recognise human error and do not issue PCNs if a digit or two is incorrectly inputted.
If the VRN entered is sufficient enough to identify the vehicle, then they must abide by their own statement of recognising human (or sticky key/machine) error and not issue a PCN.

consumer rights act 2015

should be:

Consumer Rights Act 2015

10.The Protection of Freedom act 2012,

should be:

10.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,

And a suggested extra couple of paragraphs to add here, in the light of that new photo!

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The important requirement of entering a full VRN into the ticket machine should be made clear to patrons in prominent lettering at the ticket machine, that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.

5.1. The Defendant discovered this week that the Claimant has just added a new sticker/sign to the PDT machine, that was not there on the material date. The added sticker now says: ''All characters from your VRN must be entered in full and exact''.

5.2. The Defendant questions why that instruction was only just added to the machine, and why the machine instructions are still conspicuous by the absence of any warning, at the very point of transaction/sale, about the risk of a £100 parking charge for not managing a full VRN input, howsoever caused. The tariffs are listed, but there is no 'Red Hand Rule' style warning giving appropriate prominence to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce a 'pitfall or trap' that leads to a hidden penalty.

5.3. The Claimant may try to rely upon the (completely different) Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, the Defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

And I notice you have lost any mention of 'no legitimate interest' which is pretty vital in any such defence, so you could add somewhere quite near the end - maybe as #11, and move the last para down to '12 - echoing the Supreme Court words:

The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

Ibcus

Not sure when it was put up.


I have this picture on my phone, date taken 18/04/2018 21:03




That is a web version, the original complete with meta data is here on my server, 2MB in size


http://rcwb.co.uk/HX-King-Street-Wigan/IMG_20180418_210350.jpg

Pjr1525

Many thanks coupon m. I shall start on that in the morning. Ibcus, thanks for the work that you're doing. Interesting new sign that. It's almost as if they're reading our minds - or the forum! Regards.

Pjr1525

http://imgur.com/a/4Iqu9UI Photo taken 17/04/2018 - 3 days after my alleged contravention.

Coupon-mad

Always argue that the point of sale (with instructions) is the machine itself, and that whilst it lists 'charges' it has a 'misleading omission' in that list - nothing about the penalty appears on the screen or the stickers.

Ibcus

May also add that the ticket doesn't mention a VRN at all, so after it's printed how are you supposed to check it is correct?


Any reasonable person would assume that M/C was the machines identity code for that car park, so you have no way of knowing the ticket was invalid.


Sample ticket from my thread

Coupon-mad

A good point well made! :T

Pjr1525

In the County Court
Claim No xxxxxx
Between
Xxxxxxxxxx (claimant
And
Xxxxxxxxxx ( defendant )

Defence

1.The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2.the facts are that the vehicle xxxx xxx of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date correctly and that a ticket was purchased and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment was supplied to the claimant early on in the form of the parking ticket.

2.1 The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and sufficient VRN was entered to positively identify the vehicle in question.

2.2. The Defendant has requested a list of all payments recorded by the PDT machine and images captured by ANPR on the material date from the claimant’s solicitors.

2.3 The Claimant’s website states that they recognise human error and do not issue PCNs if a digit or two is incorrectly inputted.
If the VRN entered is sufficient enough to identify the vehicle, then they must abide by their own statement of recognising human (or sticky key/machine) error and not issue a PCN.


3.The particulars of claim state that the vehicle xxxx xxx incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxxxx. The particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of practice direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4.Due to the sparseness of particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability or trespass. However, it is denied that the defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

5.Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The important requirement of entering a full VRN into the ticket machine should be made clear to patrons in prominent lettering at the ticket machine, that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.

5.1 The defendant discovered this week that the claimant had just added a new sticker/sign to the PDT machine, that was not there on the material date. The added sticker now says: All characters from your VRN must be entered in full and exact.”

5.2 The defendant questions why that instruction was only just added to the machine, and why the machine instructions are still conspicuous by the absence of any warning, at the very point of transaction/sale, about the risk of a £100 parking charge for not managing a full VRN input, however caused. The tariffs are listed, but but there is no ‘Red Hand Rule’ style warning giving appropriate prominence to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce ‘ a pitfall or trap’ that leads to a hidden penalty.

5.3 The Claimant may try to rely upon the (completely different) Supreme Court case of Parking eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC.67. However, the defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, that could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85.”

Para 199: What matters is that a charge of the order of £85(…) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

6.The important and mandatory information regarding the fact that ANPR is used for enforcement purposes in the terms and conditions, are in such a small font at the very bottom of the signage as to make it unreadable.

6.1 The defendant has discovered this week that a new and prominent sign has been added to the existing sign on entering the car park in question that was not there on the material date, informing patrons that ANPR was being used for enforcment purposes, thus adding weight to The defendant's assertion that the existing information that was displayed in very small font on the terms and conditions was unreadable.

6.2. The defendant questions why the new sign was necessary if the Claimant considers the existing sign adequate.

6.3 Also it does not state specifically that the ANPR images will be compared to data from the ticket machine for the purpose of issuing a £100 penalty. There is also misleading information on the main sign at the entrance to the car park which states ‘Full terms and conditions at ticket machine’, there are no such ‘Full terms and conditions’ at the ticket machine. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. Even if it is proven that the Claimant has the necessary authority then it cannot be claimed that there is a commercial justification for issuing parking charge notices to paying patrons, as distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis, because The defendant finds it hard to believe that the landowner would support the ticketing of fee paying patrons, thus risking further revenue. Also there is no deterrent value, because the patrons have already paid, so there is nothing to deter.

9. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any goods purchased must be ‘fit for purpose’. The Ticket that was issued was not ‘fit for purpose’ The claimant took the defendant’s money to issue an invalid ticket and now wants to charge the defendant a penalty for having an invalid ticket.

10.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, at section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge on the notice to keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


12. In summary, it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using the case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

I believe the facts contained in this defence are true

Xxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxx
Date.

I’ve corrected this using coupon mad’s suggestions. Is it ready to submit. Thanks

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me, except this needs sorting:

‘ a pitfall. Or trap’

should flow better, no full stop:

'a pitfall or trap'

Pjr1525

Hi coupon m. Many thanks for your invaluable help. Visited the car park in question this morning and found yet another new sign, one that wasn't there on the material date. ( I have photos of before and after ) It adds weight to my assertion that the font on the terms and conditions. ( para 6 ) is unreadable.
I will try to upload the new photo. Regards.