Accidental small underpayment

Jimsnap

KeithP said:

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?

They do, but I thought I'd get it in at the start in case the judge didn't read the whole thing. Do you think they do read everything? I have this probably mistaken feeling that they've seen it all before and make their minds up fairly quickly.  

Redx

So what makes you say that it is illegal ? That is some assertion and assumes an act of parliament is in force ? Which act and which sub section ? What would you say if questioned on it by the judge ?

nosferatu1001

Unlawful and illegal are different words 
illegal would be criminal. 

No, don't get it out of the way. The defence is written that way and don't repeat it. 

1505grandad

Also I believe that para 2 is supposed to deny liability of the PoC. Do the PoC hold the RK liable? If so state you admit you are RK and driver (has the driver been outed?) but liability is denied  -  as in the template. 

As it stands you are not denying liability as either RK or driver. Hence my steering you to the template hoping you would pick up the "non liability" phrase.

(No doubt the experts can explain much better than me.)

Jimsnap

Hmm, I can see I need to do more homework, it's incredibly time consuming but I'd hate Walton to win.

Le_Kirk

You are almost there, you just need to contract your paragraphs into one paragraph that explains succinctly about the PDT (without it becoming a weighty tome), ditch any other paragraphs that are already in the standard defence template and save the story for the WS.  You will then end up with a defence that looks like the template with only paragraphs 2 & 3 edited to suit your circumstances.

Jimsnap

How about this?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. The defendant admits to being the driver

2. The car park was Pay and Display, it was a dark evening:

 The defendant parked correctly and paid the correct amount into the parking machine, £6, the machine only registered £5 and issued a ticket with

 that amount printed on it, this was not noticed by the defendant at the time.

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 for a ‘parking 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, instead, 

the machine had a notice next to it stating - “ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted” 

This is clearly untrue and gives the impression that it’s not possible to to be issued with an incorrect ticket.

5. The defendant appealed to the claimant but this was rejected, as far as the claimant was concerned the ticket displayed on the screen was invalid and that was all that mattered.

When requested to provide data from the machine to see what had gone wrong, the claimant stated “the machine did not belong to Premier Parking Logistics” and did not reply to a further request.

The defendant decided not to appeal to the IAS having researched as such, and finding it has been described by MP's as "putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank”.

6. The defendant denies any liability has been incurred, and notes that the claimant should put their own house in order before using their heavy-handed tactics on motorists who have clearly tried to follow the rules.

MothballsWallet

Le_Kirk said:

The solicitor has slapped on a made-up fee of £60 that they know is wrong and will show them up in court

The solicitor will say they were only following orders guv, the orders of their client, the parking company.

AIUI, a solicitor's first duty is to the court and not their client (I think I read that on here once, posted by someone who is more of a regular than me).

D_P_Dance

Indeed, a solicitor, especially one in the private parking area, should know what is and what is not a legitimate claim and advise their client accordingly.

Coupon-mad

Why not add that the Defendant has discovered from initial research that this is not the first case where this has happened with the old machines that the C uses and intends to supply corroborative evidence that the fault lies with the machines and other genuine motorists, like the Defendant, have been similarly caught.