Accidental small underpayment

Jimsnap

brianposter said:

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

Really? I'm trying to make it as clear as I can to the judge as to what happened. If I remove it there's not much left to say except the machine was faulty without explaining how. Are you saying I should remove all references to the £3?

KeithP

Do not pay too much attention to Brian. Have a read of some of his other mischief making posts.

brianposter

If £5 was printed on the ticket then £3 is completely irrelevant.

Coupon-mad

brianposter is not a regular on this forum. 

You do not need a paragraph number for every sentence; it reads very oddly.  Should be just a couple of paragraphs.

Jimsnap

I feel like I'm going in circles now...

D_P_Dance

If Brian gives advice with which posters with several thousand posts  disagree, examine it closely.  

Jimsnap

I have to submit my defence this week, I think this is good to go now.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.

The defendant admits to being the driver

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. The car park was Pay and Display and was entered at night.  Signage by the pay and display terminal stated,  “Ticket will only be issued upon correct fee being inserted.” The defendant put the correct payment - £6 -  into the machine to pay for overnight parking, but the machine only registered £5, and subsequently issued a ticket with a value of £3 which only covered one hour of parking.  This was not noticed by the defendant.

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

 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. 

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

4. The defendant denies any liability and suggests 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

Ignore Brian
Theyre not a regular and their advice is odd
The advice about having fewer para ius of course something you follow. CONCISE. 

Jimsnap

nosferatu1001 said:

Ignore Brian
Theyre not a regular and their advice is odd
The advice about having fewer para ius of course something you follow. CONCISE. 

I only have 4 now, apart from the template ones to be included at submission, I don't think I can reduce it any further without the paragraphs becoming too lengthy.

nosferatu1001

4 isnt much help. I wouldnt include it