Britannia parking charge notice

KeithP

Schmoo17 wrote: »

So can I copy my previous post above or shall I go via notepad ?

Copy what you want from Word into Notepad, then copy it from Notepad into a Reply on here.

Schmoo17

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 how do you think it sounds now ? I have put in the points you raised I think. Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

The aquarium car park was very light and well lit on the day.

I would not put that, as it makes it seem like the signs would be hard to miss. DO NOT help the other side by such words!

And change this for the usual 'no authority flowing from the landowner' defence point you will find in most examples in the NEWBIES thread as this isn't making the point properly (and parking firms can offer contracts):

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.

Schmoo17

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Schmoo17

Britannia are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

Schmoo17

Amendment to point 25 :
Britannia parking are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

Schmoo17

I think that is all the amendments sorry its a bit messy as still on mobile as can’t seem to get up address sorted on computer.
Thank you for your help again. Much appreciated.

Schmoo17

Just looked at reply to check so basically I amended point 10 and 25. Just was worried about 25 with the wording. As not really sure if there are contracts between land owner and car park ticket operators. I don’t understand the wording on their letters I’ve received. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

There will be a contract but you want to force them to show it in court, because sometimes the dates, site boundaries etc. are questionable, such as in this case (read the bit about the landowner contract):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5959677/court-report-romford-ukpc-evidence-trashed

I would change this (NB: parking firms HAVE NO CCTV and you can't blame them for not supplying what they will not have!):

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.

...to something like this, which takes the 'error' about the car park away from you and passes the buck to Britannia to prove their timings:

11. It was many weeks after the event, after submitting a fruitless POPLA appeal (due to lack of information supplied by the Claimant in the PCN), that this Claimant finally divulged as 'POPLA evidence' some photographs previously withheld. These suggested for the first time that the Claimant's charge related to the xxxxxx(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. They also supplied ticket machine data from ………to ……… with an entry time quoted as ……. As it was school holidays the queues to enter this site were massive, then cars were driving round and round for at least 10 minutes looking for parking spaces, then finally the queue for paying at the PDT machine would have taken another few minutes before even having a chance to read the terms and tariffs, find the right money and pay.

13. It is unproven that the supposed 'ANPR entrance and exit' times are synchronised with each other, let alone with the PDT machine. Although it is clear that both are interrogated before a PCN is issued, the ANPR and PDT machine systems operate independently and the timings can be very different, as has been proven in cases where drivers have the Google Location app and/or a Dashcam timing, where ANPR has been shown time and again to be unreliable and several minutes out between entrance and exit clocks and any PDT machine clock. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the synchronisation of not only the two ANPR camera clocks that day, but also the PDT machine, and how often and when exactly this was checked and audited (given that the BPA Trade Body have stated that they do not audit ANPR camera systems at all).

I've removed the time you purchased the Aquarium ticket, which has nothing to do with the time your purchased the PDT at the machine, unless I am missing something?