HX Car Park Management PCN wrong reg typed into machine

Ibcus

I shall send Gladstones an email

Ibcus

I have no words for this
https://hx-gov.uk/

Pjr1525

Absolutely ridiculous, we recognise human error, but we will still screw you for some human error.

Ibcus

I would appreciate any comments on this defence


[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Claim No: XXXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BETWEEN[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] CLAIMANT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]AND[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENDANT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim are denied.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material day correctly within a designated bay and a ticket was purchased from the Pay and Display Terminal (PDT) and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment in the form of a copy of the ticket purchased was supplied to the Claimant at their internal appeal stage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and a sufficient Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) was entered to identify the vehicle, as attested to by the Claimants staff member ‘EB’ in the Zatpark export supplied by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 and the Claimant’s solicitors.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The ticket purchased mentioned nothing about a VRN, it simply states M/C IDENITY. Any reasonable person would assume that M/C IDENTITY was the machines identity code for that car park, so there is no way of knowing the ticket was invalid, once purchased.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The particulars of claim state that the vehicle XXX XXX incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at King Street Car Park 55-59 King Street.
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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 and that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has since added additional signage to the PDT machines that was not present at the material date stating: “All characters from your vehicle number plate must be entered in full and exact.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant has requested the date the Claimant started management of the site in question. The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is an accredited member, states “Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be imme[/FONT]diately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”


[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] The Defendant is aware 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 enforcement 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant questions why the new sign was necessary if the Claimant considers the existing sign adequate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Dated this 26th day of March 2019[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]STATEMENT OF TRUTH[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SIGNED [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]











[/FONT]

Pjr1525

Similar to my defence and I won. When you submit your w/s, make sure you include large, good quality photos of the before and after signs, the judge in my case did study them.
I also believe that the photos that I sent in my w/s to Gladstones might have made them realise they wouldn’t win, hence why they didn’t attend court. Regards.

beamerguy

Pjr1525 wrote: »

Similar to my defence and I won. When you submit your w/s, make sure you include large, good quality photos of the before and after signs, the judge in my case did study them.
I also believe that the photos that I sent in my w/s to Gladstones might have made them realise they wouldn’t win, hence why they didn’t attend court. Regards.

Just shows that Gladstones issue claims they know nothing about

A very screwed up company

MothballsWallet

Ibcus wrote: »

Is it common practice for the PCN to be addressed Mrs 'lastname' 'firstname' ??

It's unusual, but as KeithP says, irrelevant.

KeithP wrote: »

Not that I know of.

Does it matter? It clearly identifies the registered keeper.

It does show how dumb these PPCs are at setting up their roboletter systems though.

Seriously, even a 2 year old can put "first name" and "last name" fields in the correct order...

MothballsWallet

Quentin wrote: »

If you need further advice on this other one start a separate thread about it!

So, it's a V5C issue then and not just the PPC being incompetent at setting up mail merge templates (as I thought in my previous post: but I still wouldn't put it past these companies to be just that stupid)?

Coupon-mad

I love this defence, it is a shining example of facts and also argues 'nothing to deter' to set it apart from the Beavis case. Perfect IMHO:

Ibcus wrote: »

I would appreciate any comments on this defence


[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Claim No: XXXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BETWEEN[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] CLAIMANT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]AND[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENDANT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim are denied.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material day correctly within a designated bay and a ticket was purchased from the Pay and Display Terminal (PDT) and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment in the form of a copy of the ticket purchased was supplied to the Claimant at their internal appeal stage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and a sufficient Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) was entered to identify the vehicle, as attested to by the Claimants staff member ‘EB’ in the Zatpark export supplied by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 and the Claimant’s solicitors.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The ticket purchased mentioned nothing about a VRN, it simply states M/C IDENITY. Any reasonable person would assume that M/C IDENTITY was the machines identity code for that car park, so there is no way of knowing the ticket was invalid, once purchased.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The particulars of claim state that the vehicle XXX XXX incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at King Street Car Park 55-59 King Street.
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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 and that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has since added additional signage to the PDT machines that was not present at the material date stating: “All characters from your vehicle number plate must be entered in full and exact.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant has requested the date the Claimant started management of the site in question. The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is an accredited member, states “Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be imme[/FONT]diately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”


[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] The Defendant is aware 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 enforcement 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant questions why the new sign was necessary if the Claimant considers the existing sign adequate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Dated this 26th day of March 2019[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]STATEMENT OF TRUTH[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SIGNED [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]











[/FONT]

Pjr1525

Hi Beamer. When HX/Gladstones sent me a copy of the witness statement there were 41 pages, the first 7 from the CEO of the company and the rest various correspondence between myself and HX.
One page was a copy of an email from me which they said they had never received, another was a letter which they also say they never received including the proof of posting which I'd sent them. Another was the letter they sent to my MP saying that they would reduce the charge back to £60 for 14 days and on the next page was a demand from them for £85 only 5 days later.

They also very kindly included a letter that I'd sent to HX about a case in Staines where the judge dismissed the case because it was proven that a ticket had been purchased, as in my case. All this in THEIR w/s to the court by the way. Sadly they still get paid even if they lose. Happy note, it's the ppc who have to pay them.