Accidental small underpayment

Jimsnap

I think I might need to clarify what the ticket actually showed, I think people are getting confused, which doesn't bode well for what the judge might think.
The ticket has £5 printed on it, but it only gave one hour of parking time which costs only £3.  There is no £5 tariff, it goes from £3 for one hour, to £6 overnight (after 6pm)  
So I paid £6, the machine issued a ticket with £5 printed on it as the amount received, but only a one-hour time allowance. 

Does this make sense? And reading my defence do you think that is clear?

Thanks

James

nosferatu1001

WE are not confused, in general>? We all know what you mean. You need to make sure that the person reasding your defence also gets that. So saying there is a tarrif of £3 for one hour of £6 for all day would help. 

brianposter

I am happy with what you have written.

Le_Kirk

Close up paragraph 2 and the sentence beneath it to make one paragraph, ditch 4 and you are done.  Adjust the numbering of the rest of the defence and don't forge to send ALL of it when submitting it by the advised e-mail route.

Jimsnap

Le_Kirk said:

Close up paragraph 2 and the sentence beneath it to make one paragraph, ditch 4 and you are done.  Adjust the numbering of the rest of the defence and don't forge to send ALL of it when submitting it by the advised e-mail route.

Done, the final draft is below.
I'm submitting via MCOL, is that what you mean by advised email route, the CCBCAQ email address given by KeithP?

The defendant admits to being the driver

The facts as known to 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 tariff was £6 for overnight and £3 for one hour.  The defendant put the correct payment - £6 -  into the machine to pay for overnight parking, but the machine only registered £5 and issued a ticket for one hour with a value of £3.  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.

nosferatu1001

Everything must be in a numbered para. State you put in 6 £1 coins. That detail brings it home this is a cash payment and putting oin £5 for a £3 stay should be seen as UNLIKELY by the court

Snakes_Belly

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

I would say,

The defendant has knowledge of similar instances regarding faulty machines in car parks operated by the claimant in Central Birmingham. Signed witness statements will be provided.

I would also refer to the Claimant as an ex clamping company somewhere.

You could throw in the Jolley case.

Snakes_Belly

 In Jolley V Carmel Ltd [2002] 2-EGLR-154 , it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. 

The defendant entered the correct tariff into the ticket machine and therefore made reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms and should not be penalised for any breach. 

In my hearing the judge read this case out and agreed with it. My case was also about a faulty ticket machine and an ex clamper.


  

Jimsnap

Snakes_Belly said:

 In Jolley V Carmel Ltd [2002] 2-EGLR-154 , it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. 

The defendant entered the correct tariff into the ticket machine and therefore made reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms and should not be penalised for any breach. 

In my hearing the judge read this case out and agreed with it. My case was also about a faulty ticket machine and an ex clamper.


  

Thanks! I'll try and fit it in, you also mentioned de minimis way back in this thread, do you think it's worth using that as well? If so any advice on wording?
Thanks

Snakes_Belly

I don't think that I would. If I had accidentally underpaid by £1.00 then I might but you have not transgressed. You paid the correct amount. 

If any part of this was De Minimis is that you did not check the ticket and I don't think that I would mention that unless the Claimant brings it up in their WS.

I am not an expert on producing a defence. My experience is just as a defendant in a similar scenario.