Accidental small underpayment

1505grandad

Per template defence:

"The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied."

May I suggest, as you have dropped the "denial of liability" point, that you amend:-

"The defendant admits to being the driver"

To:-

"It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied."  (assuming you are both of course)

This is because it has always been my believe that if do not deny something then that something is accepted.

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”. 

Going back to this, MPs didn't describe the IAS as 'putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank'. You need to be very careful about what you attribute to others in legal submissions, you can't paraphrase or draw convenient inferences between comments and their origins. It strengthens my advice that you leave all of this out of your Defence. 

Jimsnap

1505grandad said:

Per template defence:

"The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied."

May I suggest, as you have dropped the "denial of liability" point, that you amend:-

"The defendant admits to being the driver"

To:-

"It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied."  (assuming you are both of course)

This is because it has always been my believe that if do not deny something then that something is accepted.

My wife is the registered keeper but I was driving.

Would - The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied - be sufficient?

KeithP

Jimsnap said:

1505grandad said:

Per template defence:

"The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied."

May I suggest, as you have dropped the "denial of liability" point, that you amend:-

"The defendant admits to being the driver"

To:-

"It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied."  (assuming you are both of course)

This is because it has always been my believe that if do not deny something then that something is accepted.

My wife is the registered keeper but I was driving.

Would - The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied - be sufficient?

Remind us - who is the Defendant? You or your wife?

Umkomaas

My wife is the registered keeper but I was driving.

Would - The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied - be sufficient?

I can't plough back through around 180 posts on this thread to check, but whose name is on the claim form, yours or that of your wife?

brianposter

Jimsnap said:

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.

You must say that £5 was printed on the ticket - that is what says the machine is at fault.

Jimsnap

The final, final draft...

1.       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 facts as known to the Defendant:

2. The Defendant admits to being the driver of the vehicle in question but denies liability

3.  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  (which is printed on the ticket)  and issued a ticket for just one hour,  this was not noticed at the time by the Defendant.     

4. 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. 

5. 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

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

1505grandad

"I can't plough back through around 180 posts on this thread to check, but whose name is on the claim form, yours or that of your wife?"

My thoughts as well as to who the RK is  -  who could be the D  -  the OP has always just mentioned "driver" - hence my query.

I have done control + F (wife) on all pages and the only mention prior to my query is:-

"3 February at 5:18PM (page 9)

Here's where I've got to so far, please feel free to tear it apart:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

1. I  admit to being the driver

2. On the evening in dispute my wife and I arrived at the carpark at approx 7.20pm.

We were going to The Hippodrome to see the 7.30pm showing of Swan Lake, a Christmas present from our children."

As far as I can tell everything has been stated as "I" in the posts of the OP.

So hopefully the OP has received a claim in his own name (can you confirm this?) and NOT trying to defend a claim that is in fact in his wife's name.

Umkomaas

I just don't understand why people don't answer simple questions. If the OP is defending this, but it's in his wife's name, then there's some pain ahead. But I am rapidly moving away from contributing to threads where questions aren't answered. So on this thread, I'll read if I have time, but I'm done in terms of input. Good luck to the OP. 

KeithP

Jimsnap said:

The final, final draft...

That probably isn't true.
Please answer the questions.