Two Offences in same parking session?

Coupon-mad

Do you think it needs both 21 & 23?

Yes because #21 mentions that the law caps the sum recoverable.

As it's an IPC member, read the IAS Annual Report about single digit VRN errors and what the IPC have to say about it. Quote it and throw that in, maybe instead of 22.

Sweller

Something like this? or would you keep para 1 and 2 as separate points?

Any alleged breach of contract was unintentional and in any event de minimis, as the main requirement of the contract was completed as payment was made for the required duration via the RiNGO app.

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS), who provide the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for the Members of the International Parking Community (IPC), of which the Claimant!!!8217;s client is a member, state on Page 3 of their Annual Activity Report 2016/2017.

!!!8216;C) A description of any systematic or significant problems that occur frequently and lead to disputes between consumers and traders of which the ADR entity has become aware due to its operations as an ADR entity.
'An issue was identified concerning trivial and wholly innocent typographical errors being made by motorists when entering their registration details into parking kiosks who were then being issued with parking charges.
D) Any recommendations the ADR entity may have as to how the problems referred to in paragraph (c) could be avoided or resolved in future, in order to raise traders!!!8217; standards and to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices.
The issue referred to above was resolved by providing guidance to all adjudicators, encouraging them to find in favour of the motorist in appropriate cases where the mistake is so trivial that it would be unfair to uphold a parking charge. This has led to a significant reduction in this type of case reaching adjudication.

The Claimant's client is in clear breach of this guidance, as the Defendant informed the Claimant!!!8217;s client on 25/09/17, via their appeals process that the alleged parking sessions was actually paid for by the use of the RiNGO Application and that an incorrect VRN had selected. The selected VRN was xx xTW where as it should have been xx xYW. Both VRNs are owned by the defendant!!!8217;s immediate family and ANPR will confirm that xx xTW did not enter the car park on that day.

Coupon-mad

The Claimant [STRIKE]'s client[/STRIKE] is in clear breach of this guidance, as the Defendant informed the Claimant [STRIKE]'s client[/STRIKE] on 25/09/17, via their appeals process that the alleged parking sessions was actually paid for by the use of the RiNGO Application and that an incorrect VRN had selected.The selected VRN was xx xTW where as it should have been xx xYW, with T and Y being next to each other on a small keypad and easily transposed (and should have been just as easily noticed when the operator carried out the required 'manual checks' of data before issuing any ANPR PCN). This was an example of exactly the sort of 'trivial and wholly innocent typographical error' that the Claimant's Trade Body had in mind that should never be pursued by their members after appeal.

Both VRNs are owned by the Defendant's immediate family and ANPR will confirm that xx xTW did not enter the car park on that day.

I would just add the above because the keypads are small and the PPC should have spotted it.

And it's not the claimant's 'client' because the Claimant is NOT the solicitor.

would you keep para 1 and 2 as separate points?

Have them as one number but then separate continuing paragraphs like this, if they are about the same point:

1

1.1.

1.2.

Sweller

Well defense has been posted, so let's see what happens next.
Unfortunately I went to the car par to get photos/videos of signage, but the site is no longer a car park, so not got the evidence I had hoped for.

KeithP

Sweller wrote: »

Unfortunately I went to the car par to get photos/videos of signage, but the site is no longer a car park, so not got the evidence I had hoped for.

Can Google Street View help?

The entrance signs certain look pretty poor.

Sweller

Well it looks like BW intends to continue with the claim. Is this just still part of the robo process?
They have written with a copy of Directions Questionnaire. Is there anything I should be looking out for, it looks fairly straight forward. Is there still opportunity for them to back out or does this mean it is definitely going to court?

KeithP

You should be 'looking out for' a Directions Questionnaire from the court.

Guidance on how to complete it is of course available in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

The Claimant can discontinue their claim at any time up until actually going into the courtroom.

Coupon-mad

Well it looks like BW intends to continue with the claim. Is this just still part of the robo process?

You know it is, from reading lots of other BW Legal claims, we hope, to save asking us each and every time a form arrives.

Is there anything I should be looking out for,

Your own DQ from the court. You will (hopefully) know this from the NEWBIES thread, and how to fill it in, question by question.

does this mean it is definitely going to court?

NO, but BW Legal usually do, and we usually win. As you will have seen!

Sweller

In response to the above, no I didn't know where the 'robo claim' stops and when someone actually reviews the information and makes a judgement call on the actual case.

Anyway DQ arrived today, so have the info to complete that as recommended in the Newbie section. Unfortunately I still have the issue that the other half has said she will not go to court. If I can't persuade her differently then I'm guessing I can either ask for it to be 'heard on papers' (not sure how you do this unless it is just put 0 in the witness box) or I'm guessing I can try and mediation to get the claim down a bit. Nether is the outcome I would choose or seems fair, but any view if a papers only defense stands any chance?

KeithP

There's no need to decide at this time whether you want it dealt with on the papers.
My suggestion would be to continue as if a hearing is going to take place by following the guidelines in Bargepole's post.
The Defendant can decide any time up to seven days before a booked hearing that they want the case determined in their absence.

Meanwhile, have a look at this short video - may make the process look a little less terrifying:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU