Letter of Claim - Called my Bluff

nosferatu1001

Why is it obvious who the driver is? Have you told them?

Umkomaas

I got this notice so taking a chance for 5 mins parking seemed low risk. 

About the same level of risk these days as having a picnic in a lion's cage. There for the taking!

Le_Kirk

phily_b said:

The problem is I am not sure what angle to take, it is obvious who the driver is and I didn't know this charging technology existed before I got this notice so taking a chance for 5 mins parking seemed low risk. Everyone else seems to have a solid case. Will persevere and come up with something. Thanks again for dragging me through this it really is appreciated.

Was it REALLY only five minutes parking?  In which case have a look at grace periods; there are supposed to be two such, one at the beginning - to let the motorist read the terms and conditions (which even with the new BPA code is a MINIMUM of five minutes) and one at the end to let you leave the car park.

phily_b

nosferatu1001 said:

Why is it obvious who the driver is? Have you told them?

No, and I thought the driver was in the photo but this is not the case.

Umkomaas said:

I got this notice so taking a chance for 5 mins parking seemed low risk. 

About the same level of risk these days as having a picnic in a lion's cage. There for the taking!

Regrettably I made it too easy for them.

Le_Kirk said:

phily_b said:

The problem is I am not sure what angle to take, it is obvious who the driver is and I didn't know this charging technology existed before I got this notice so taking a chance for 5 mins parking seemed low risk. Everyone else seems to have a solid case. Will persevere and come up with something. Thanks again for dragging me through this it really is appreciated.

Was it REALLY only five minutes parking?  In which case have a look at grace periods; there are supposed to be two such, one at the beginning - to let the motorist read the terms and conditions (which even with the new BPA code is a MINIMUM of five minutes) and one at the end to let you leave the car park.

Just double checked, 20 mins stay.

nosferatu1001

They dont have facial recognition. Come on, this isnt a tv show!
Sigh. 20min and 5min are very different. 
You have to give complete, total facts. Dont guess. 

Coupon-mad

This is the Claimant's claim to prove.  Many are discontinued and none allow the added £60 or £70, at least not when defended by using and adapting our template defence. 

Your point must be that the signage was so inadequate that the driver had no idea of any contract and could not be bound by it.  Indeed the car left without entering into a contract, and the parking firm should have allowed a consideration period (on arrival, plus very clear signs in all areas of the car park) in addition to a minimum ten minute grace period to leave.

phily_b

In the appeal response when the PCN was issued Bank Park stipulated that their signage were "clear, numerous and prominent for all to see." How much does this have a bearing on my defence? Do they all say that? Still struggling to pick a path and have writers block so was going to borrow something like the below:

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 over two years ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.

 

18.      The Defendant always pays the small amount for parking in the area, as the Claimant's records will show this. The Defendant can only assume there must have been a machine malfunction, or a simple keying error caused by a sticky key in the old machine, but no evidence has been provided of partial VRMs recorded that day. Nothing has shed light on the allegation and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

I may have parked there before but maybe not in the vehicle specified I cannot remember, so point 18 might be pointless.

Le_Kirk

Nothing is pointless as it is the claimants case to prove.  If you say you paid, they have to PROVE you didn't.  Your paragraph 18 just stops.  ............. the claimant is put to strict proof  [of what]?

KeithP

phily_b said:

In the appeal response when the PCN was issued Bank Park stipulated that their signage were "clear, numerous and prominent for all to see." 

Do they all say that?

Yes of course they all say that. Are you really expecting any car park operator to say "our signs are useless"?

You need to say that they are useless - in fact you don't because that is already spelt out for you in para 19 of the template Defence.

phily_b

This is the best I can come up with, going to be light but conscious that time is ticking away given the delays it might take for the courts to get it onto MCOL.

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 over two years ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.

 

18.      The Defendant had no idea that any contract was undertook upon the arrival to the car park and could therefore not be bound to it. The car exited without entering into a contract in what should have been an allowed consideration period in addition to the minimum ten-minute grace period to leave.