Machine Fault / Typo?

KeithP

N4THANP33L wrote: »

issue date is 21/06/19

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st June, you have until Wednesday 10th July to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 24th July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

N4THANP33L

Turns out it was a lot easier to get the information from SIP than I thought it would be... it was a typo as confirmed below.

Dear Nathan,

Thank you for your email.

Upon looking at the machine records further, the vehicle registration has been entered incorrectly.

Instead of XXXX BXX, XXXX 2XX was entered onto the keyboard on the pay and display machine. Therefore, when matching up payment of parking sessions with the captures of the vehicle entering and exiting the Relevant Land through the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (‘ANPR’) cameras, no payment was allocated as the vehicle registration was entered incorrectly.

A total of five notices have been sent to your address, which have provided you with the opportunity to dispute the charge but no response has been received from you.

In view of the above, we are prepared to accept a settlement of £50.00 to conclude the matter (£25.00 for the fee we have incurred to issue the claim with the County Court Business Centre and £25.00 towards the parking charge itself, as it was issued correctly given the incorrect vehicle registration was entered).

If you wish to accept this offer, payment can be made on our website using our reference of xxxxxx and your vehicle registration (XXXX XXX). Please be advised this offer is available for 14 days from the date of this email. If you do not wish to accept the offer, then you will need to respond to the claim form accordingly.

I guess the question is should I pay this? Surely if I just contest the court claim and present the evidence, they'll just drop it?

beamerguy

Not acceptable ?

In my earlier post I said ...

"If SIP have a fully accountable system, they would know they had a surplus of money that day which did not tie up with VRN's"

You can conclude that SIP have stolen your money and this could be the tip of the iceberg ?

You must make it very clear to SIP that if this continues to court, you will raise this with the judge and request SIP provides proof that they did not receive your machine payment
PLUS, you will inform the court of their attempt of double recovery which is Abuse of Process

I think this will be a whooping for SIP in court. They are best to back off now

The_Deep

I would not pay them a penny. They failed to do their homework before rushing to court. A less robust person than your good-self might have succumbed to their threats and paid them money to which they were not entitled.

Write them a robust letter as advised by Beamer.

N4THANP33L

CLAIM No: xxxx

BETWEEN:

SIP PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

MR. xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1.1 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2.1 The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx Bxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the relevant land at George Street, Bradford on Friday xxth December 201x at the times stated on the claim. A ticket was purchased from a pay-and-display machine on site for £2.00 at 14:17, which was valid for twelve hours. A typing error occurred when entering the required data into the machine, resulting in the vehicle registration being entered incorrectly as xxxx 2xx.

3.1 The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant, as the registered keeper and/or driver of vehicle registration xxxx Bxx, incurred the charge as the terms of the contract were breached, as between the time of the vehicle entering/exiting the Relevant Land, neither a parking session was purchased, or electronic permit was registered to the vehicle.

4.1 Evidence submitted by the Defendant (Appendix A) shows a data entry from a pay-and-display machine operating on the Relevant Land at George Street, Bradford. This record shows a parking session, purchased xx/12/201x at 14:17:35, permitting vehicle registration xxxx 2xx use of a parking space for 12 hours. The Defendant claims that this ticket was purchased with a simple typing error and was intended to be purchased for vehicle registration xxxx Bxx.

4.2 The evidence submitted in Appendix A was sent to the Defendant, by the Claimant, at the request of the Defendant on xx/06/201x, four days after the issue date of the claim.

4.3 The Claimant, as the proprietor of a business specialising in vehicle parking, has the knowledge and expertise with regards to human error and the limitations of the technologies that they use for the operation of their business.

4.4 The Defendant proposes that simple typing errors in vehicle registration entries, where any reasonable third party would assume that the registration number was entered incorrectly without intent, would not be a breach of contract.

4.5 The Defendant proposes that simple typing errors in vehicle registration entries, particularly in the occurrence of a single character, would be a common problem, and that appropriate due diligence should have been conducted by the Claimant to check the evidence in their possession prior to making a claim.

4.6 The Defendant also proposes that unless expressly stated within the contract, it should be implied that the Claimant is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of any claim for breach of contract. The burden of proof is with the Claimant, and all relevant evidence is in the possession of the Claimant.

5.1 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60 for ‘Damages’, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

5.2 The Defendant would like to refer to a similar case in which District Judge Taylor concludes;
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process
The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.
This order has been made by the Court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Any Party affected by this order has a right to apply to set it aside, vary, or stay it by application made not more than 7 days after this order was served upon the Party.”


6.1 In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. 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.

Name:
Signature
Date

beamerguy

5.2 The Defendant would like to refer to a similar case in which District Judge Taylor concludes;

Help the judge with this by quoting "Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

N4THANP33L

Hi there,

it's in a footnote on the actual document but the formatting doesn't allow for this, but thanks!

Le_Kirk

You don't submit evidence at this stage - defence, that comes later with the Witness Statement.