Accidental small underpayment

Jimsnap

I have a copy of @dvdccd's defence now, it's a similar case where  has paid the correct fee but has received a PCN.  They haven't shown how this occurred other than there wasn't a readout on the LCD. I've attached the relevant part that I think I could use, what do you think?

Jimsnap

I'm going to attach this as an exhibitJimsnap said:

I have a copy of @dvdccd's defence now, it's a similar case where  has paid the correct fee but has received a PCN.  They haven't shown how this occurred other than there wasn't a readout on the LCD. I've attached the relevant part that I think I could use, what do you think?

Jimsnap

I've done another revision after looking at @dvdccd's defence including a request for costs, I think it was mentioned on here that it might be a waste of time though.

I need to send it asap so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Attachments included:

Exhibit 1. Photo of windscreen PCN taken by attendant

Exhibit 2. Photo of windscreen PCN taken by defendant

Exhibit 3. Excel vs Wilkinson Approved Judgment - Bradford CC

Exhibit 4. Another disputed PPL  PCN in similar circumstances

1.  I am Mr xxxx xxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. 

     The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge

  Sequence of events:

2. My wife and I arrived at the PPL carpark at approx 7.20pm.

3.  It was a dark and wet night, so instead of going to the payment machine and trying to work out how much to pay,  I went over to a parking attendant, (who was in the process of issuing a PCN on another car) to ask what the charges were, he informed me they were £3 for one hour or £6 to park until 8am the following morning.

4.  I went back to the car and my wife gave me 6 one pound coins from the purse of change we keep for parking meters, I inserted them into the payment machine, took the ticket and placed it on the dash, happy that although we only needed 2-3 hours we had plenty of time in hand if needed.

5.  There was no indication from the machine that anything was amiss.

6.  When we returned to the car after the show I was shocked to see a parking notice on the windscreen, and at first thought that somebody had placed it there as a joke but soon realised it wasn’t.

7.  When I examined the ticket I’d paid for I found it showed the machine had issued a ticket to the value of only £5, which was printed on the ticket, and that the ticket only allowed one hour parking time.

8.  I was confused by this because I’d paid £6 and there was no £5 tariff and in fact, as I found out later, there was a notice on the machine stating it will only issue a ticket when the correct fee is inserted, this is clearly incorrect.

I would have thought the machine would have issued a refund which would have alerted me to the problem.

9.  My assertion is that the machine was faulty and failed to register all of the coins that I'd inserted, or that it had rejected one of my coins, which went unnoticed by me, but still issued a ticket for an invalid amount.

10. My appeal to PPL was rejected because they said the ticket I displayed was incorrect, this is the fault of their machine, not me, they stated I should have checked the ticket; If I’d bought a ticket for a shorter period I would normally check it to make sure I returned in time, but because I’d bought one which was far in excess of the time I needed I didn’t automatically do that.

I trusted the machine to operate correctly.

11. I contacted the claimants solicitor to request a read-out from the machine in order to see if there was any record from the day in question, this was refused on the grounds that PPL didn’t own the machine.

12. I have knowledge of another disputed PCN issued by the claimant near to where my incident occurred. It seems it was another, apparently faulty, ticket machine.  The defendant has allowed me to use the relevant section from their defence as an exhibit in my witness statement. (Exhibit 4.)

13. I believe there are grounds here to argue De-Minimis, PPL are trying to make money out of a small technicality where there has clearly been no attempt to underpay for parking.

Abuse of process – the quantum

14. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the

Claimant has added a sum of £60. 

The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is

false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ

Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case

in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020

The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with an improper

collateral purpose. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

15. After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing

the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims,

Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding

that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR

27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom

of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of

cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated "I find that striking out this claim is the only

appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown".

 Evidence of payment

16.  I have attached a copy of the disputed ticket along with the photo taken by the parking attendant of the ticket in place. 

As you can see from the attendants photo, only the time is legible, maybe if he had been able to read the amount paid he would not have issued the penalty 

ticket?

In the matter of costs, The Defendant seeks:

17. (a) Standard witness costs for attendance at court, pursuant toCPR 27.14  and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

18. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claims entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim

19. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

KeithP

You don't appear to have referenced Exhibits 1,2 and 3 in your Witness Statement.
You must do that if you want anyone to read them - just like you have for Exhibit 4.

Jimsnap

Revised with exhibit references

Attachments included:

Exhibit 1. Photo of windscreen PCN taken by attendant

Exhibit 2. Photo of windscreen PCN taken by defendant

Exhibit 3. Excel vs Wilkinson Approved Judgment - Bradford CC

Exhibit 4. Another disputed PPL  PCN in similar circumstances

1.  I am Mr xxxx xxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. 

     The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge

  Sequence of events:

2. My wife and I arrived at the PPL carpark at approx 7.20pm.

3.  It was a dark and wet night, so instead of going to the payment machine and trying to work out how much to pay,  I went over to a parking attendant, (who was in the process of issuing a PCN on another car) to ask what the charges were, he informed me they were £3 for one hour or £6 to park until 8am the following morning.

4.  I went back to the car and my wife gave me 6 one pound coins from the purse of change we keep for parking meters, I inserted them into the payment machine, took the ticket and placed it on the dash, happy that although we only needed 2-3 hours we had plenty of time in hand if needed.

5.  There was no indication from the machine that anything was amiss.

6.  When we returned to the car after the show I was shocked to see a parking notice on the windscreen,  and at first thought that somebody had placed it there as a joke but soon realised it wasn’t.

7.  When I examined the ticket I’d paid for I found it showed the machine had issued a ticket to the value of only £5, which was printed on the ticket, and that the ticket only allowed one hour parking time.

8.  I was confused by this because I’d paid £6 and there was no £5 tariff and in fact, as I found out later, there was a notice on the machine stating it will only issue a ticket when the correct fee is inserted, this is clearly incorrect.

I would have thought the machine would have issued a refund which would have alerted me to the problem.

9.  My assertion is that the machine was faulty and failed to register all of the coins that I'd inserted, or that it had rejected one of my coins, which went unnoticed by me, but still issued a ticket for an invalid amount.

10. My appeal to PPL was rejected because they said the ticket I displayed was incorrect, this is the fault of their machine, not me, they stated I should have checked the ticket; If I’d bought a ticket for a shorter period I would normally check it to make sure I returned in time, but because I’d bought one which was far in excess of the time I needed I didn’t automatically do that.

I trusted the machine to operate correctly.

11. I contacted the claimants solicitor to request a read-out from the machine in order to see if there was any record from the day in question, this was refused on the grounds that PPL didn’t own the machine.

12. I have knowledge of another disputed PCN issued by the claimant near to where my incident occurred. It seems it was another, apparently faulty, ticket machine.  The defendant has allowed me to use the relevant section from their defence as an exhibit in my witness statement. (Exhibit 4.)

13. I believe there are grounds here to argue De-Minimis, PPL are trying to make money out of a small technicality where there has clearly been no attempt to underpay for parking.

Abuse of process – the quantum

14. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the

Claimant has added a sum of £60. 

The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is

false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ

Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case

in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020

The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with an improper

collateral purpose. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

15. After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing

the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims,

Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding

that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR

27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom

of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of

cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated "I find that striking out this claim is the only

appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown”.

16. The full Excel vs Wilkinson  transcript is available as Exhibit 3.

 Evidence of payment

17.  I have attached a copy of the disputed ticket along with the photo taken by the parking attendant of the ticket in place. (Exhibits 1. and 2.) 

As you can see from the attendants photo, only the time is legible, maybe if he had been able to read the amount paid he would not have issued the penalty 

ticket?

In the matter of costs, The Defendant seeks:

18. (a) Standard witness costs for attendance at court, pursuant toCPR 27.14  and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

19. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claims entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim

20. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Jimsnap

Just had a phone call from DCB Legal asking me if I wanted to make an offer in settlement.
I told them I'd only be interested in them making me an offer to cover my time wasted on their ridiculous claim.

Jimsnap

At last!  I've just got back from holiday to a letter from DCB Legal informing me their client no longer wishes to proceed with the their claim 

It was sent two weeks ago, just after I had the phone call mentioned above.

I can't believe it went on for nearly 18 months, and I have to admit there were times when I thought it wasn't worth the hassle of fighting it, mainly due to the relatively small sums involved, but I'm glad I did; I guess like others here I feel strongly enough about the injustice business' like PPL perpetrate on drivers to see it through.

Thank you to everyone on here who has patiently guided me through the process and offered invaluable advice. It's been a long journey and I'm genuinely amazed at the time complete strangers have put into reading my statements and correcting where necessary.
This forum is invaluable

Do you think I should make a counter claim for my time, etc, or just leave it at that?

Redx

Well done , PPL and dcb  legal lose again !!  😁😁👍👍👍

Another one bites the dust !!

The time for a counter claim has long since passed , should have been submitted with the defence , and paid for at that time , like in the Redman2186 thread

You could issue a court claim of your own , but I doubt that it would succeed

Snakes_Belly

I thought that your case was due soon.  Good news that they have backed off. 

Personally I would draw a line under it and next time I went to the Hippodrome I would go on the train and not have the hassle of parking in Brum  There is the congestion charge now as well.

If you get the chance go and see the Red Shoes. It's brilliant.

Jimsnap

Redx said:

Well done , PPL and dcb  legal lose again !!  😁😁👍👍👍

Another one bites the dust !!

The time for a counter claim has long since passed , should have been submitted with the defence , and paid for at that time , like in the Redman thread

You could issue a court claim of your own , but I doubt that it would succeed

Thanks, to be honest I don't think I'd have the stomach for it anyway, just glad to see the back of it all.