Payment Didn't Go Through = Fine & Impending Court!

Spaceconcept

Thanks, all positive replies.
But if we send them an SAR letter (identifying my wife as driver) and also defend partly on the basis that they have got the wrong person, can they not just scrap that claim and submit a new claim against my wife?

Spaceconcept

Sorry, I meant reminding them that my wife was driver (we already identified it in May).

nosferatu1001

YEs, of coursse they can. But they lose all the money theyve spent on this claim, and have to start again.

Coupon-mad

It's highly unlikely. Only seen it once and the husband, then wife, won at both hearings.

It's also you best defence point. You CANNOT be pursued where a firm has the name & address of the driver. The POFA only allows a rk to be held liable where a PPC does not know the driver's name & address.

It is a simple fact of the law.

Spaceconcept

Excellent.

I'll get on with the AoS and defence then.

Spaceconcept

AoS completed the other day.

I have had a go at my defence, edited from the great info provided on this forum. I will post below. I have made comments under each section in bold, where I could do with some help.

Further comments welcome.

Thanks,

Spaceconcept

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. 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 XXXX XXX when it was parked at 2 Athenaeum Road, London. N20 9AE.

3. The PCN stated the contravention as “???”
I do not know what it stated as we unfortunately lost the original PCN.

4. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed with the Defendant
b. There was any agreement to pay a parking charge.
c c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
f. The Pay by Phone line, being indisputably an offer of a 'distance contract', complied with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

Spaceconcept

Been struggling to post it all, so reverted to peicemeal.

I'm trying to post the rest of it, but my IP address has just been banned by the Administrator!

Spaceconcept

Rebuttal of Claim

6. A contract was not formed with the Defendant. The Claimant has prior knowledge that the Defendant was not in charge of the vehicle between 19:54 and 22:24 on 04/04/2018. The Claimant has no valid claim against the Defendant as the Claimant had been made aware from the first appeal that the Defendant’s wife Mrs XXXXX was in charge of the vehicle. The original appeal and online correspondence is not available to the Defendant. The earliest correspondence the Defendant has a record of is a letter sent to Civil Enforcement dated 24/05/2018. The letter is from the Defendant’s wife - Mrs XXXXXX, in which she states that she drove vehicle registration XXXX into the car park at 2 Athenaeum Road, London at 19:54 04/04/2018. Mrs XXXXX also states in the letter that is was she who registered her card details and made payment to the payment line 01414040000.

!

7. The Defendant’s wife made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.

a. Payment for parking was made via telephone using a cashless system provided by PayByPhone.

b. This is a distance contract which requires certain information to be supplied in advance.

c. The service makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display.

d. The Defendant’s wife followed the PayByPhone instructions exactly as shown on the signage at the payment machine and entered her payment card details as instructed.

e. The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made.

f. The failure of the payment service to accept payment is not the Defendant or Defendant’s wife’s responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.

g. The Pay by Phone line, being indisputably an offer of a 'distance contract', did not comply with the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which says:

''Confirmation of distance contracts: 16.—

(1) In the case of a distance contract the trader must give the consumer confirmation of the contract on a durable medium.

(2) The confirmation must include all the information referred to in Schedule 2 unless the trader has already provided that information to the consumer on a durable medium prior to the conclusion of the distance contract.

(3) If the contract is for the supply of digital content not on a tangible medium and the consumer has given the consent and acknowledgment referred to in regulation 37(1)(a) and (b), the confirmation must include confirmation of the consent and acknowledgement.''

!

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 when unable to fully comply with the terms.

!

!

7. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

!

8. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

a. 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. Is this correct for Barnet?

KeithP

Spaceconcept wrote: »

...my IP address has just been banned by the Administrator!

This thread may help with that:

Please don't copy and paste from Word/Outlook