Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg 5 April 2019 at 10:00AM edited 19 January 2020 at 1:17AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking 255 replies 9.6K views

familyguy321

First draft of defence completed using the very helpful template by @Coupon-mad for where false admin costs are including in the claim.

The particulars of the claim can be viewed here: https://imgur.com/XFPtwAI

Only showing points #17 and #18 as the rest did not require editing (except for some minor bits):

17.      The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago. 

Not exactly sure what else can be added here. Is it worth admitting that defendant is driver? Previous attempt to use POFA non-compliance at POPLA stage was weak so don’t want to re-use here.

18.       The Particulars of Claim allege the contravention as being No Payment Ticket. This is simply not true - correct payment was made and the ticket displayed. The Defendant’s vehicle entered GS Car Park, Mansfield Street, Leicester, LE1 3DL at approx. [entry time] on [date of alleged contravention]. The vehicles’ registration number was entered into the PDT machine and cash payment of £1.30 for 1 hour parking made. The vehicle left the car park at approx. [exit time]. A total time of approx. 35 minutes was spent in the car park. Several requests have been made by the Defendant to see a partially redacted record of payments made at the machine between the times the Defendant’s vehicle entered and exited but the Claimant has not been forthcoming with this.
Without the data from the payment machine, it is only reasonable to conclude that the alleged charge is either due to the equipment failing to record payment correctly or that there was a ‘simple keying error’ whilst entering the vehicle registration. With regards to the former, the Claimant is put to strict form to provide details of when the machine was last serviced by an independent company prior to [date of alleged contravention].
In the case of the latter, the BPA clearly obliges its members in section 17 of their Code of Practice to identify if a keying error has been made. The £1.30 payment made would in fact be very easy to identify if the Claimant had carried out the necessary checks as required in the BPA Code of Practice. The Claimant is to put to strict proof that these checks were made (showing full records from that day including a redacted VRN list of payments around the time in question) and to explain why a charge was issued when they would indisputably have identified the matching £1.30 payment. The Claimant would have been in no doubt that payment had been made if they had conducted the required checks. And the situation is fully within the Claimant’s control. As cameras are used to record number plates entering and leaving then they should be connected to the ticket machines. As a number-plate begins to be typed, a truly ‘connected’ system would find the ANPR image and simply require the driver to confirm that this is their vehicle, and the system would show the time of arrival (all details known to the system already).

More can be added regarding signage but not sure if it is worth including here as #19 in the template already addresses this. In this particular car park the signs have inconsistent terms & conditions.

Coupon-mad

That's good.  No need to add more about signs as the template does cover it enough.

I would admit to driving, and actually remove the template #17 entirely and split your long wording between a brand new #17 and #18:

17.     The Particulars of Claim allege the contravention as being No Payment Ticket. This is simply not true - correct payment was made and the ticket displayed. The Defendant’s was the driver and the vehicle entered GS Car Park, Mansfield Street, Leicester, LE1 3DL at approx. [entry time] on [date of alleged contravention]. The vehicles’ registration number was entered into the PDT machine and cash payment of £1.30 for 1 hour parking made. The vehicle left the car park at approx. [exit time]. A total time of approx. 35 minutes was spent in the car park. Several requests have been made by the Defendant to see a partially redacted record of payments made at the machine between the times the Defendant’s vehicle entered and exited but the Claimant has not been forthcoming with this.  Without the data from the payment machine, it is only reasonable to conclude that the alleged charge is either due to the equipment failing to record payment correctly or that there was a ‘simple keying error’ whilst entering the vehicle registration. With regards to the former, the Claimant is put to strict proof to provide details of when the machine was last serviced by an independent company prior to [date of alleged contravention].

18.  In the case of the latter, the BPA clearly obliges its members in section 17 of their Code of Practice to identify if a keying error has been made. The £1.30 payment made would in fact be very easy to identify if the Claimant had carried out the necessary checks as required in the BPA Code of Practice. The Claimant is to put to strict proof that these checks were made (showing full records from that day including a redacted VRN list of payments around the time in question) and to explain why a charge was issued when they would indisputably have identified the matching £1.30 payment. The Claimant would have been in no doubt that payment had been made if they had conducted the required checks. And the situation is fully within the Claimant’s control. As cameras are used to record number plates entering and leaving then they should be connected to the ticket machines. As a number-plate begins to be typed, a truly ‘connected’ system would find the ANPR image and simply require the driver to confirm that this is their vehicle, and the system would show the time of arrival (all details known to the system already).

Add near the end before the statement of truth:

Whilst this unfair parking charge relates to a different location, the Claimant invites the court to take into account a judgment about the same Sussex-based Claimant, who are routinely losing claims in their court area (and not just losing them, but within a recent judgment - publicised in the Sunday Times and other newspapers - this Claimant was warned by Lewes Court that they may face a possible Civil Restraint Order if they bring any more cases that are similarly 'wholly without merit' to the courts). There are similarities with the One Parking Solution v Ms W case as handed down in April 2020 at Lewes County Court, where Deputy District Judge Harvey found the signs, the terms, and the entire operation to be working against the public interest and the landower authority was a 'sham'.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this claim too, is entirely without merit.

familyguy321

Thanks for the quick response @Coupon-mad. Will amend #17 and #18 as suggested and also add the paragraph on the April 2020 case - that should definitely add more strength to this case!

Coupon-mad

Refresh the page because I just edited my reply a little so the final suggested para reads well.

In my experience, OPS are dropping cases like hot potatoes in Sussex at least.  I had 6 OPS telephone hearings coming up and they discontinued 5 and lost the one they tried in recent weeks with me acting as lay rep.

familyguy321

Thanks, will add the amended version. Plan is to print, sign&date, scan and submit by email on Friday (actual submission deadline is Mon 29th but no point delaying if the defence is ready). 
Reassuring to hear OPS are dropping cases. If this one does get to a telephone hearing for this one would you be happy to act as a lay rep? Not sure how it would work but would be great to have your support. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, if it's a phone hearing, I'll happily act as Lay Rep for any OPS case on here as long as, much nearer the time, you show me every piece of paperwork, including their own WS & evidence (if they don't run away).  

Don't show me yet because I suspect they'll give up before your hearing.

nosferatu1001

No need to print the whole shebang. 
Just take a photo of your sig, on WHITE paper ,and insert it into the word defence document. 
Then convert it all to PDF
Much smaller file results, and no wasted trees. Well, fewer. 

familyguy321

Just made final edits to the defence and going to email tomorrow. I have edited the red bits in the template and changed to black font, amended paragraphs #17 and #18 as per @Coupon-mad suggestion, and also added a Paragraph 29 to cover about OPS' recent abysmal record in Sussex. The Southampton Judgement will be added as a second PDF to the email. 

Anything else I may have missed?

Coupon-mad

Nope, looks good.

familyguy321

An update....2 letters received. One from claimant regarding their intention to proceed with the claim and second a day later from CCBC regarding Notice of Proposed Allocation to Small Claims track. 

Next step is to complete and return Form N180. Most of it seems straightforward but just wanted to clarify a few things:
1. D1 - hearing venue - should be Warwick right?
2. D3 - Witnesses - there are a couple of people giving witness statements but will not attend hearing. In this case, what number to put down? 1 or 3? 
3. Can the form be emailed instead of posted?

FG