Incomplete vrn entered

Pjr1525

Hi both. My hearing is not till mid March, though had to lodge my witness statement by mid December.
There are several points from their witness statement that I would like advice on, but will wait till nearer the time so still fresh in my mind.
I have long since complained to my MP but of course he was fobbed of with the usual reasons by the ppc, including what decent sorts they are for allowing upto 2 incorrect digits. In two minds whether to submit skeleton argument before hearing. By the time of the hearing it will have been 11 months since the event, with all that goes with it, just for a typing error! And this is the ppc that boasts on their website 'Fair to the land owner and fair to the motorist '
What Hypocrisy! Regards.

Ibcus

This may brighten your day

Pjr1525

Many thanks incus. My hearing is this Thursday. I'll let you know how I get on.

Just a brief question before I write a fuller posting. On the claim form from Gladstones saying what they were pursuing me for, it gave location, time and breaching terms at that location plus amount they were claiming for, but nothing else, not how the terms were breached i.e failed to purchase/validate ticket, is this significant?

Le_Kirk

Assuming you have submitted your defence & Witness Statement, you can only hope you used "sparse particulars" as can be found in most of Bargepole's concisely written defences.

Pjr1525

Hi le Kirk my post 169, points 3 and 4.

Le_Kirk

Good, all covered then and the PPC are condemned by their own evidence!

Pjr1525

Hi, Too many points for me to ask advice on. The only real thing I'm not sure of is the Beavis argument. The claimant states that ruling us still pertinent to my case because basically a contract is a contract no matter what the circumstances are.

How can I argue that it can be regarded as a penalty if I had paid.

I provided conclusive proof that I had paid and they knew full well that I had paid.

I have at least one definitely provable breach of PAP.

I have proof of at least 2 untruths by HX in their correspondence with me and one proof of misleading my MP.

Briefly, I paid and displayed, parked correctly and did not overstay. Entered 4 characters of a 7 character reg. they are pursuing me for breach of contract for not entering all 7 characters.
Does anyone have a killer argument in summing up.

Also because I have nothing to hide in my using this forum for free advice I will disclose when my hearing is; St Helens County Court this Thursday 14th March at 2 pm. If the ppc wish to use this forum in their evidence, they must admit that they were spying on me, which I'm sure is the equivalent of Phone tapping. Wish me luck.

Redx

BEAVIS was an overstay on a free for 2 hours car park, no opportunity to top up the fee or remain on the site and he overstayed by some 50 minutes , so breached the BPA CoP on grace periods

PE paid the landowner to "police" the site, by leasing it or something similar (HX dont)

yours is a paid for car park (pay & display) so completely different animal and I believe the penalty rule is being engaged here (uinfairly seeing as they could have checked , seen there was an error and cancelled the pcn and court case too)

de-minimis applies and the BPA and POPLA have issued recent guidance on this, plus the HX website states they will allow for 2 character errors, so why not 3 ?

the driver paid for parking and was not trying to buck ther system, so was being honest and tried to abide by the site rules (but maybe the pay & display machine didnt have obvious signage about payment and what would happen if an incorrect VRM was out in)

their machine accepted the contract and issued a ticket, so HX accepted the new contract and/or their systems should alllow for this and not accept a VRM that isnt on the car park


good luck

Umkomaas

the HX website states they will allow for 2 character errors,

What does the signage say about this 'leeway'? Nothing I suspect. Therefore the contract isn't as open as it should be. And this must surely then be a 'penalty'!

As they say a contract is a contract - turn that back on them.

U414830

Best of luck on Thursday don't let the scammers win, I'm fighting the same case as you so keep us posted.