Accidental small underpayment

nosferatu1001

As above
The detail of adding 5 x £1 coins shouldn't ring false with a court, but make their contention you clearly did that only to get £3 worth of parking sounds ridiculous!

brianposter

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

This sentence is important for two reasons. It serves to prove that something was wrong with the payment system and, to some extent explains why you would not look at the ticket.

For that reason I think it should be as prominent as possible and therefore precede the other paragraphs.

" It issued a ticket for a ‘parking value' of £3 whilst showing £5 was actually registered."

You may know what this sentence means but I am not sure that anyone else will. As far as I can tell you are simply confusing things.

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

You really do have a talent for confusing things.

As to the rest of the defence, I would not complain about the signs as the driver obviously tried to read them carefully - others may disagree.

Jimsnap

I've taken on the comments made previously and re-jigged my defence, hopefully, this does the trick. Thanks for everyone's help so far.

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

3. The PDT machine had a notice next to it stating - “Ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted"

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

5. The machine only registered £5 and issued a ticket with that amount printed upon it, this was not noticed by the defendant at the time.

6. Despite only issuing a ticket worth £3 the machine did not return the £2 overpayment, had it done so the defendant would have been aware of the problem.

7. 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.

8. The defendant submits the ability of the machine to issue a ticket for an incorrect amount should be clearly displayed at the point of payment. 

9. When asked by the defendant 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.

10.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”.

11. The defendant has knowledge of other faulty machine incidents connected to the claimant, these can be provided if needed.

12. 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 and have actually paid the correct fee. 

13. The claimant is simply trying to profiteer based on technicalities where there has been no attempt to avoid parking charges.

brianposter

Forget 8 and 13.

Le_Kirk

Have a look at 5 & 6, is that what you meant to say?  In #5 the PDT issued a ticket with £5 printed on it but in #6 the ticket was only worth £3

nosferatu1001

Indeed, you have probably too many para there. 
SHorten it. Defendant put 6 £1 coins into the machine, and the machine only registered £5 and printed a ticket showing only £3 of time paid for. That has cut down half a dozen lines into one.

Jimsnap

Another edit, I feel it must be close now

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

3. The PDT machine had a notice next to it stating - “Ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted"

4. The defendant put 6 £1 coins into the machine to pay for overnight parking, but the machine only registered £5 and printed a ticket showing only £3 of time paid for, (one hour) this was not noticed by the defendant at the time.

5. Despite only issuing a ticket worth £3 the machine did not return the £2 overpayment, had it done so the defendant would have been aware of the problem.

6. 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. 

7. When asked by the defendant 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.

8. 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”.

9. The defendant has knowledge of other faulty machine incidents connected to the claimant, these can be provided if needed.

10. 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 and have actually paid the correct fee.

nosferatu1001

Instead of:

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

3. The PDT machine had a notice next to it stating - “Ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted"
Try
2. The car park was Pay and Display and was entered at night. Signage by the pay and display terminal (PDT) [NB ALWAYS define acronyms the first time you use them!] stated “Ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted"
You've removed a para and made your point more clearly

Was there nothing on the sign stating that overpayment would be accepted but no change given? Or similar? Thats their usual get out. 

Jimsnap

Was there nothing on the sign stating that overpayment would be accepted but no change given? Or similar? Thats their usual get out. 

To be honest, I've no idea, who reads all the signs before getting a ticket? I haven't been able to get back there since to check it out.

brianposter

Please forget about about £3. It has no relevance to the case so leave it out.