Accidental small underpayment

Le_Kirk

Perhaps a little more meat on the bones to set the scene for the judge (who has, at this stage, no idea of the circumstances surrounding your issue) but don't go overboard and do save the narrative for the WS.  Perhaps read a few other defences on the forum and see what others have done.

1505grandad

Why not follow the excellent advice of KeithP when he posted on 18th Jan at 1.50PM (page 7):-

"Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th February 2021 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence."

Jimsnap

1505grandad said:

Why not follow the excellent advice of KeithP when he posted on 18th Jan at 1.50PM (page 7):-

"Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th February 2021 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence."

That's what I'm trying to do, file my defence in plenty of time.

1505grandad

"To create a Defence...................... look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread...."

Where you will find the following:-

THEN - UNLESS YOU HAVE A PARKING EYE CLAIM (DIFFERENT) - READ THIS TEMPLATE DEFENCE AND EDIT IT TO SUIT:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

That template defence is new for 2020. From the 6 April 2020 a statement of truth at the end of a defence must now be in the following form:

nosferatu1001

2 and 3 set the scene
- what is the defendant - Keeper, Driver or neither
- a SMALL background as to teh type of carpark this is, maybe a few words on what happened v what the claimant alleged.
Youre not writing war and peace, but at the same time you need to clue the judge in. NONE of the documents from the claimant will enlighten the judge as to the circumstances of the claim. None. You can do that
Instead of writing this in a vacuum, have you looked at how others have structured their 2 and 3? 10? 20? More?

Jimsnap

1505grandad said:

"To create a Defence...................... look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread...."

Where you will find the following:-

THEN - UNLESS YOU HAVE A PARKING EYE CLAIM (DIFFERENT) - READ THIS TEMPLATE DEFENCE AND EDIT IT TO SUIT:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

That template defence is new for 2020. From the 6 April 2020 a statement of truth at the end of a defence must now be in the following form:

That's exactly what I'm doing

Jimsnap

Le_Kirk said:

Perhaps a little more meat on the bones to set the scene for the judge (who has, at this stage, no idea of the circumstances surrounding your issue) but don't go overboard and do save the narrative for the WS. 

How about this?

The facts as known to Defendant:

1. The defendant admits to being the driver

2. The defendant parked correctly and paid the correct amount into the parking machine, £6.

3.  The defendant submits that the machine was faulty due to its failure to register all of the coins and subsequently issue a ticket for a non-valid amount.

     It issued a ticket with a value of £3 whilst showing £5 was actually registered.

4. The defendant believes the possibility of the machine issuing a ticket for an incorrect amount should be clearly displayed at the point of payment 

5. The claimant’s machine had a notice next to it stating - “ticket will only be issued upon the correct fee being inserted”
This is clearly untrue.

6. The claimant informed me they did not own the machine and so could not provide a readout that could prove the correct amount was inserted.

Jimsnap

I've added another paragraph regarding them trying to claim £160 instead of £100.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics

- and -  

                       

James Callaghan

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. The defendant admits to being the driver

2. The defendant parked correctly and paid the correct amount into the parking machine, £6.

3.  The defendant submits that the machine was faulty due to its failure to register all of the coins and subsequently issue a ticket for a non-valid amount.

     It issued a ticket with a value of £3 whilst showing £5 was actually registered.

4. The defendant believes the possibility of the machine issuing a ticket for an incorrect amount should be clearly displayed at the point of payment 

5. The claimant’s machine had a notice next to it stating - “ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted” This is clearly untrue.

6. The claimant informed me they did not own the machine and so could not provide a readout that could prove the correct amount was inserted.

7. The defendant disputes the amount the claimant is claiming, the original amount was £60, rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days. The claimant is now double-claiming by

trying to claim £160, this is illegal.

D_P_Dance

Illegal or unlawful?  Ask google.  

KeithP

Jimsnap said:

7. The defendant disputes the amount the claimant is claiming, the original amount was £60, rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days. The claimant is now double-claiming by

trying to claim £160, this is illegal.

Don't paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 and others, in the template Defence cover that?