Accidental small underpayment

KeithP

Jimsnap said:

Le_Kirk said:

Jimsnap said:

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?

Do not submit your defence via MCOL, if you put one word,, even full stop in the defence box o MCOL it is taken as your defence.  You follow the guidance in the template defence you are using to send it, as you say, to the e-mail address as advised by @KeithP

I acknowledged service via MCOL, are you saying even though I started the process with them, I don't need to file my defence with them?

That is exactly what is being said.

Why are you looking to deviate from the tried and tested guidance you were freely given in your very own thread on 18 January at 1:50PM <<<=== that's a link. Click on it.

D_P_Dance

I was being pedantic, a single full stop, surely not! 

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

I was being pedantic, a single full stop, surely not! 

Try it next time you're in front of the beak, I'm sure you'll have the opportunity before too long, you seem very experienced! 😄

Le_Kirk

D_P_Dance said:

I was being pedantic, a single full stop, surely not! 

Yep, absolutely!

Jimsnap

Ok, I've tried to incorporate all the excellent advice I've been given and have arrived at what I think is a pretty good 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 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 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,  this was not noticed at the time 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. Then Defendant submits there is a precedent in Jolley V Carmel Ltd [2002] 2-EGLR-154 where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.

4. 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 similar instances regarding faulty machines in car parks operated by the claimant (an ex-clamper) in Central Birmingham.

Umkomaas

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”. 

I don't think this is apposite to your core defence, personally, I'd leave it out. Others may have a view. 

Snakes_Belly

Did you appeal to the operator?  I agree I would avoid mentioning IAS unless they bring it up in their WS. 

nosferatu1001

EVERY para MUST have a number. Thats why every para in the template has one

Jimsnap

Snakes_Belly said:

Did you appeal to the operator?

Yes I did, a waste of time, they and their solicitor, while understanding my point were only concerned that the ticket was not valid for the time parked.

Snakes_Belly

Jimsnap said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Did you appeal to the operator?

Yes I did, a waste of time, they and their solicitor, while understanding my point were only concerned that the ticket was not valid for the time parked.

Would not mention IAS unless they do in their WS.