Britannia parking charge notice

Coupon-mad

Surely not only £85?

Schmoo17

Yes it was £85 plus added costs. The N1SDT claim form under important notice has a total amount listed as about £250. I don’t think I’m missing anything. There is no other amounts listed on any of the other letters.

Coupon-mad

OK, that's standard rubbish and the total is inflated & objectionable.

I will try and do the on line aos tomorrow as have to book up a very old Mac.

Good, then come back & show us your draft defence based on bargepole's concise ones in the NEWBIES thread.

Schmoo17

Yes thank you I totally agree. I will do that thank you very much.

Schmoo17

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: My number

Claimant: Britannia Parking

Defendant: My name

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

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle number plate when it was parked at name and address of car park.

4. The PCN stated the contravention as “failed to make a valid payment” and this contravention is denied. The defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty), not least because the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid.

5. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 – EGLR -154, it was held that a party, who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.

6. The defendant made payment for parking in cash on site using the ticket machine on level 2.

7. The defendant followed the ticket machine instructions exactly as shown. The ticket was issued so no failure to make payment was recognised.

8. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel. Appropriate payment was made via the provided payment machine but said machine did not indicate any failure on registration entry and defendant reasonably expected a valid ticket had been issued.

9. It was only when the PCN arrived in the post did the claimant realise that there had been an error in parking payment on the day in question.

10. A misleading event also occurred on the date , the defendant entered another private car park by mistake. The defendant left this site immediately on noticing the error. The defendant wrongly assumed that this was the car park relating to the PCN issue because payment had been successfully taken at car park name earlier that day. Also the photograph submitted in the PCN was very dark and showed the vehicle lights still lit which prompted the defendant to believe the picture had been taken in the very dark cramped car park TRY TO FIND NAME.
The aquarium car park was very light and well lit on the day.

11. The defendant realised her error after submitting the POPLA appeal and receiving the claimant’s photographic evidence from name car park.

12. The claimant supplied photographic evidence for the car being in a space but it is difficult to see if it was from the name aquarium car park. The defendant asked for any photographic or CCTV footage from around the ticket machine which would have given evidence for the defendants ticket purchase. Or after the time of ticket purchase showing the dashboard of the car that would have shown a displayed ticket purchased by the defendant. Britannia refused to supply this data.

13. The claimant supplied ticket machine data from ………to ……… with an entry time quoted as ……. The defendant purchased an aquarium ticket at …… by credit card receipt can be shown. As it was school holidays the queues for entrance and payment to the aquarium were massive. The claimant states that the defendant entered car park at ……., the defendant purchased aquarium ticket at ……. This gave the defendant 17 minutes to drive into the car park, park, discuss with daughter length of time needed in the aquarium, find the correct change as the ticket was expensive, purchase the ticket, wait for daughter to sort her belongings, walk to the aquarium entrance, queue and purchase a ticket from a single operating till. The defendant denies that this was possible. The defendant believes the queue for the aquarium was a minimum of 20 minutes.

14. The defendant asked for ticket machine data from 10 am as it is believed the car entered the car park before ……. The claimant refused to supply this information.

15. The defendant recalled seeing other motorists huddled around the ticket machine. Consequently the defendant asked the claimant to supply:
a) Information or a log regarding any error messages or out of order display notices
b) Company used to service ticket machines and any appropriate maintenance logs
c) Telephone logs from other customers who had ticket machine problems on that day.
d) Evidence of other parking tickets issued on the day in question.
The claimant refused to supply this information.

16. The defendant visited the aquarium on DATE and received the parking charge notice in an envelope dated 12th January 2018. Evidence can be supplied. Unfortunately this was after the defendants recycling collection by Teignbridge District Council so no proof of ticket purchase can be supplied. Also the defendant paid by cash as this was deemed safer than using credit cards because of press releases warning of car parks continuing to charge after the vehicle had left the premises.

17. The Defendant always buys a ticket and can only surmise that the keypad failed to record the full VRN on this occasion or as previously mentioned was listed on the earlier log which hasn't been supplied by the claimant. No signage was noted by the defendant to retain the ticket for proof of purchase, in case of machine failure or recommendations to check the validity of the ticket issued.

18. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. A valid parking ticket was purchased by the defendant.

19. It is clear that no conduct by the Defendant caused the penalty to arise and a professional parking firm could not reasonably lay any blame with the Defendant, for their own failure.

20. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring 'open dealing' and the doctrine of good faith.

21. 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 stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £85. The claim includes an additional £135 and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

23. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

24. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing paying patrons for a hundredfold penalty, for not noticing inaccurate data presented to them on behalf of the Claimant.

25. The claimant states on the parking charge notice that the car park is private land operated by Britannia parking (the creditor). They are not the owners of the land who any parking contracts would be with.

26. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Schmoo17

Hi I have drafted this defence. Would you mind having a look when you have the time and giving me some feedback. Thank you again in advance.

Schmoo17

I did the AoS thank you so much for the step by step guide. Amazing. I would have had a meltdown with all the jargon and definitely would have messed it up !! lol !! Big thank you.

Schmoo17

Sorry not sure if point 5 is relevant to my case was on one I copied a bit and thought is sounded good !!

Coupon-mad

#5 is valid.

Remove this, never say this!

Showing all the signage that was visible.

And remove #17.

Then read any other defence to see how they normally end with points rejecting the added £60 costs and 'no landowner authority/standing and you must have a point saying the signs are pants, as the contract depend on the signage so you can't let them off on that front.

Like this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75330476#Comment_75330476

Schmoo17

Hi thank you for the feedback. I have removed point 17 and the sentance highlighted. I have added the closing statement as advised. I haven't added about signage as i have 99 pages of photographs of signage that was present on the day from the parking firm. I really don't think I can argue that point as it may weaken my defence so far i feel. How do you think it is looking now ? Is it worth detailing all the letters that have been sent and the stress that they have caused me ? I don't have any proof of the stress as its just extra on top on my already stressful situation.
Thanks again in advance.