Urgent -County Court SIP Parking Limited - Ticket Dispute

Le_Kirk

As @nosferatu1001 states DRIVER parked, (that is you), the KEEPER received a PCN, that is also you.  Maybe you want this: -

Section 16
Whilst it It is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper  they were not and the driver of the vehicle at the time. Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.
Section 17
On the 30th September 2018 the defendant tried to parked his vehicle for the 2nd night using SIP Parking receiving an a PCN for displaying an invalid parking ticket in the process, even though the defendant thought he was displaying a valid ticket. was provided for the date. The Pay & Display Terminal (PDT) was faulty.  It is not accepted denied that the location provided adequate signage or options to give notice of alternative payment on the night of the 30th. This led the defendant to make an effort to purchase a valid ticket present for the accused date but used another PDT that the defendant firmly believed was in the same car park. the wrong car parking machine causing a  Claiming frustration of contract. towards working methods of payment being available. Due to the layout of the SIP Car Park ‘Tariff Street’ and an unnamed Unbranded car park directly adjacent there was little to distinguish between the two areas of operation. insufficient boundaries, accurate signage, lighting and working alternative payments methods made it very unclear to the defendant what the process was to be followed in the case of payment machines being broken. Due this the defendant was caused to make a transnational decision at the wrong machine which overall lead to an ‘invalid ticket display’ PCN being served. Had an alternate method of payment been in place and accurate steps to follow in the event of a machine not being in order this whole event would have been avoided.

Coupon-mad

I'd bring this first sentence up into #16 as it's just not clear unless you set the scene.  I suggest this re-write:


16.  Due to the layout of the SIP Car Park ‘Tariff Street’ and an unnamed Unbranded car park directly adjacent there was little to distinguish between the two areas of operation and which machines belonged to SIP.    Whether by intent or negligence by SIP to clearly signpost their machines (especially in hours of darkness when one machine is out of order) this location operates exactly along the lines of the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court Judges were clear would not be acceptable, when they were considering the fairness of the charge in ParkingEye v Beavis.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper and driver of the vehicle at the time.  The Defendant paid for parking at two machines, across two successive nights and could not be penalised for using an alternative machine on the second night, due to the Claimant's failure to ensure the site boundaries were clearly delineated from the adjacent section (apparently operated by another provider).

17. The Defendant parked his vehicle and paid in good faith.  Upon finding the machine he had used the night before was inoperative, the Defendant located a second machine within the car park and paid & displayed.   There can be no cause of action against the Defendant. At best, this is a case of frustration of contract caused by the faulty machine and at worst, a clear attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by failing to signpost the nearest SIP machine and then issuing a PCN for an unconscionable sum.  This scenario offends against the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in terms of misleading omissions and is a further breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 para 18: ''A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.''

OhVADR

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk
Thankyou for the updates and pointers towards section 16/17, i made some small adjustment to better reflect further details from the night. Defense is printed & signed will be sending CCBCAQ Justice today with the Southampton Judgment PDF attached.

Will you keep you updated on how things proceed, again thank you for all the help on this, if there was a way to send a virtual beer i would.

nosferatu1001

Why printed? Its going in an email, yes?

OhVADR

Need to sign and date as per advice on the forum post

OhVADR

Update - Defense has been submitted to the CCBC waiting on confirmation that 'defense has been received'

My Money Claim Gov Page states that defense was received on 5th June and that Direct Questionnaires form has been sent out, will wait for this in the post if nothing is received by the Wedensday i will download my own and submit.

nosferatu1001

It smore - you dont need to print anything in order to sigh. Just embed a photo of yuor sig. 
Defence. No s. 
Sounds a sensible plan - theyve clearly gotten the cnofirmaiton from C that they want the claim to proceed. 

OhVADR

Quick update all - Direction Questionnaire has been filed back to the CCBC along with a copy of the Southampton Approved judgement. A copy was also sent via email to the claimant.

Will i have another formal opportunity to submit witness statement and any further evidence or is it not just a case of sitting still until a court date is decided ?

Redx

Read the Newbies thread post #2 about procedural questions etc

nosferatu1001

You havent yet had a the opp. to submit a WS, as the court has not yet directoed you to do so. 
The newbies thread contains every question about process you can have.