Two Offences in same parking session?

Sweller

X had a bit of a nightmare parking day last September. X borrowed the registered keepers car and parked in a private car park close to Reading station (Old Coopers garage) when X came back after parking there was a ticket in the windscreen saying they had exceeded the bay. Vehicle was a VW Caravelle, so a fairly large vehicle, and the center of the rear wheels must have been about 2 inches over the white line. X knew they had parked like it as there was a bush obstructing the front of the bay. However, to add to this, in their rush to get a train after not being able to get the P&D machine to work, X used the Ringo App but selected the wrong registration number the Ringo App. They selected their VRN opposed to hers, which as there is only 1 digit different. One ends with a Y and the other a T, so a fairly easy mistake to make. So even through X paid for more parking than I needed, they obviously got picked up on the ANPR and registered keeper got another ticket in the post a few days later!
I've followed guidance on this site and the 'no ticket' has now had a claim form issued from Northampton from BW Legal for Premier Parking and the 'Exceeding Bay' is just at Letter of Claim stage. I've responed asking for evidence etc.

I was just wondering, can you be penalised for both offences for the same session?

Also, as keeper is going mental because it's all in her name as keeper, if it goes to court does she need to attend or can I do it on her behalf?
Thanks for any help

Redx

if 2 contraventions occurred then I would have thought that they should have issued 2 pcn,s , one for each contravention

if there were 2 pcn,s they could combine them both into one court claim , that isnt an issue in itself , but at the moment it appears that one of them is at MCOL stage and the other is at LBC stage , so you have 2 different issues in progress

see post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ on how to do the AOS (by her , or you on her behalf but in HER name) - then start to construct a defence based on others posted on here recently

yes she needs to be in court if you go for a court hearing (recommended) but you can also attend and speak on her behalf unless she is asked a direct question. its her name on this MCOL after all and as keeper she did not name the driver (AFAIK) so its her name on the court case, NOT YOURS

bear in mind that unless you have 2 threads going , one for each contravention, this is going to get very muddled

if they issue a court claim for the second issue, you would want to write to the court asking for both cases to be heard at the same time, so combined into one appearance and not two

hope this explains some of it

Quentin

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

Sweller

Thanks. I've read the newbie thread and in process of preparing defence, but there is no way she will go to court. I'll wait to see if the 2nd one gets that far but at the moment I've responded to the LBC.
Once I have the defense done for the 1st one I'll post it up here. Have to admit I'm slightly confused about the £'s they are claiming and what I can challenge. On the latest from BW they state
£100.00 Principal Debt
£4.62 Interest
£25.00 Court Fees
£110.00 Solicitors Costs
On the Claim Form however, it refers to
£100.00 due to the PCN
£4.62 Interest
£60.00 contractual cost pursuant to PCN T&Cs
& the £50 Legal representative costs.

I had planned to use the following as part of the defense (grabbed from a sample defense)
7. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £110 solicitor costs.
•!!!61472;The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £110 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
•!!!61472;Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
•!!!61472;The Claimant described the charge of £110.00 "solicitors’ costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

Does this make sense?
Thanks

KeithP

It must be stressful contemplating attendance at a court - there's no denying that.

Perhaps this video will be of some comfort, showing that it is just a small business meeting:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Redx

yes it does make sense , they can only claim the original £100 plus the court costs of about £75 = £175 or thereabouts (which is why its called the small claims court)

read a dozen or more other recent court case threads with defences etc, especially ones like CEL defences which are a basic generic defence , adapt as necessary , plus any PP defences too

[Deleted User]

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £110 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

This is a valid point point - the issue that you are looking at is one of proportionality. See CPR Part 1.1.
The overriding objective
1.1
(1) These rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly,having regard to any welfare issues involved.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable !!!8211;
(a) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(b) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues; [my emphasis]

£60.00 contractual cost pursuant to PCN T&Cs

Signs generally refer to indemnity costs - so you need a breakdown for every penny incurred. Unlike credit card late payment fees, for example, which are fixed costs (eg. £12 for missing a payment) those are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES if the claimant refers to a notional fixed sum, that is not an indemnity cost, which could be permitted, but a type of liquidated damage - which was never agreed.

Sweller

Thanks. I'll post planned defense when done. Once the defense is submitted, does that mean it generally does end up in a hearing or can/do BW back down? If the registered keeper has to go to the hearing and present the defense, will they need to understand all the legalese of the cases e.g. ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis and others. If that is the case then to be honest I'm just going to have to pay them, because they will never go to court, no matter how unfair the PCN was.

KeithP

If it goes to a hearing then the defendant must attend. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone else, perhaps you, also attending and acting on her behalf. In all probability she will only need to confirm her name, maybe a few other direct questions, but unlikely.

beamerguy

Sweller ... I am intrigued, I know this car park and
when BMW Cooper re-located I thought it was prime
for parking vermin to move in, as it happens it was
Premier Parking

First thing to check is the signs. Do they say anything
about a limitation in vehicle size as they charge you with
'Exceeding Bay'
You need to check and photo them

When paying by the Ringo App, you must have a receipt
of this

The ANPR no doubt picked up because of the reg number
Did the two tickets refer to just one visit on the same day

It has been confirmed that ANPR is not accurate so if
you get further notice from BWLegal on this one is to ask
for proof especially as ANPR can misread number plates

See this thread and watch the Watchdog video
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5833463/bbc-watchdog-for-those-who-missed-it-regarding-anpr

Now on to BWLegal, they seem not to know what they
are taking on hence the word "roboclaims" is their method.
But as we all know here, judges often whoop them in court
because of their very poor claim

The Magic (or not) of BWLEGAL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing

Quentin

Sweller wrote: »

Thanks. I'll post planned defense when done. Once the defense is submitted, does that mean it generally does end up in a hearing or can/do BW back down? If the registered keeper has to go to the hearing and present the defense, will they need to understand all the legalese of the cases e.g. ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis and others. If that is the case then to be honest I'm just going to have to pay them, because they will never go to court, no matter how unfair the PCN was.

Only after the claimant has seen your defence will they decide whether or not to pursue the issue to a hearing


If the defendant is truly "mental" as you say (as in has a psychiatric condition severe enough that she cannot represent herself) then the court should be told prior to any hearing and if necessary the judge can halt proceedings and ask for a report to confirm the condition.


The case could be stayed until the defendant was capable of representing herself


But don't just pay because of the psychiatric condition!