Court Claim received, need a little reassurance that I'm in the right direction

robertcox999

nosferatu1001 said:

Of course its a good idea. 
Waiting to find a space is not parking, by defnition. Parking requires the vehicle is left. 

It's just that in my case I was taking a phone call / waiting to use PDT machine / reading terms etc. rather than driving around for an empty space. I guess it's good to have in there anyway to distinguish between actual parking and things related to attaining the parking space and ticket

Coupon-mad

Yes but on arrival, the first few minutes WERE driving around to find a space...then stopping, then answering a phone call, then getting out of the car and locking it, looking around for a machine, finding a sign telling you about the tariffs, going back to the car for change and to memorise the numberplate for sure, then walking back to the queue to pay, reading the complicated instructions with green buttons and red buttons and conflicting info at the machine, then typing in your numberplate into the faded keypad, double checking, then paying.

Oh yes, throw in a citation of HMRC v NCP about the contract only starting when the green button is pressed (it's been done before in defences, so search the forum for NCP green button machine or similar).

robertcox999

Coupon-mad said:

Yes but on arrival, the first few minutes WERE driving around to find a space...then stopping, then answering a phone call, then getting out of the car and locking it, looking around for a machine, finding a sign telling you about the tariffs, going back to the car for change and to memorise the numberplate for sure, then walking back to the queue to pay, reading the complicated instructions with green buttons and red buttons and conflicting info at the machine, then typing in your numberplate into the faded keypad, double checking, then paying.

Oh yes, throw in a citation of HMRC v NCP about the contract only starting when the green button is pressed (it's been done before in defences, so search the forum for NCP green button machine or similar).

Ok, that makes sense. I've added the NCP v HMRC too. Can you check my wording and citing for that? Also, will I have to append all of these too or just Southampton case?
Anything else I should add? Should I send this off once finalised or is there a benefit to waiting a while?

Coupon-mad

Very good but the global sum is £160 (not the interest) and try to lose some gaps/lines somewhere to make the signature and date page not fall on a separate sheet. It just looks like a more complete document if the signature isn;t separate, IMHO.

robertcox999

Coupon-mad said:

Very good but the global sum is £160 (not the interest) and try to lose some gaps/lines somewhere to make the signature and date page not fall on a separate sheet. It just looks like a more complete document if the signature isn;t separate, IMHO.

Great, changed all that. I'll add the southampton case and fill in all the blanks, change text colour to black.
Do I need to append any other cases? Should I email it today?

Coupon-mad

No other cases, and yes, no point delaying!

robertcox999

Coupon-mad said:

No other cases, and yes, no point delaying!

Thanks for your help. I've sent my defence. I'll check MCOL for updates.
I've also emailed my MP so will keep a look out for that.
I'll keep you all posted with anything of note.
Thanks 

Johnersh

total stay from entry to exit at the gates is 1 hour 6 mins

If this is a multi storey, there's easily 3 mins on arrival and departure where the car would've been moving to locate and then park & exit accordingly all at speeds sub 5mph.

Even doing basic maths 5mph is 8kph which is c. 130 metres per minute. Not far to drive in a multi storey... 

In any case, it's clearly not an overstay on the evidence, since you need time to read signs and pay, too. 

So what is the loss? Whilst parking terms have technically been breached, the delay has not caused a loss - you paid for the total period of parking, to include the call, and departed within the period you'd parked. No one else was prevented from parking. You paid for the period you made the call and the bay was free to others before you parked in it (c. 2-3 mins after entry) and the second you left it (before a further 2-3 mins were spent driving to the exit). - ie. The parking period is NOT the entry/exit time and I bet the ANPR signs don't suggest it is. 

In Beavis there was a loss - the value of free time limited slots being available to other customers, but here you've paid. It's not contended in the particulars (at least as you describe them) that you overstayed or that you should've paid more. So basically they seek to impose a £160 penalty (and make no mistake its a penalty) for merely paying more slowly than they'd like. 

That is the only alleged breach of contract argument they plead and the only one which you are required to respond to. 

Personally I'd draft something a bit more bespoke for this than drowning the key issues in boilerplate. This needs to read like an unmeritorious and disproportionate claim to bring.

Johnersh

Thanks for your help. I've sent my defence. I'll check MCOL for updates.

Noted.
Missed this with my post above. Good to have a prompt defence filed.

The witness statement can be used to emphasise any particular points in due course. 

robertcox999

Johnersh said:

total stay from entry to exit at the gates is 1 hour 6 mins

If this is a multi storey, there's easily 3 mins on arrival and departure where the car would've been moving to locate and then park & exit accordingly all at speeds sub 5mph.

Even doing basic maths 5mph is 8kph which is c. 130 metres per minute. Not far to drive in a multi storey... 

In any case, it's clearly not an overstay on the evidence, since you need time to read signs and pay, too. 

So what is the loss? Whilst parking terms have technically been breached, the delay has not caused a loss - you paid for the total period of parking, to include the call, and departed within the period you'd parked. No one else was prevented from parking. You paid for the period you made the call and the bay was free to others before you parked in it (c. 2-3 mins after entry) and the second you left it (before a further 2-3 mins were spent driving to the exit). - ie. The parking period is NOT the entry/exit time and I bet the ANPR signs don't suggest it is. 

In Beavis there was a loss - the value of free time limited slots being available to other customers, but here you've paid. It's not contended in the particulars (at least as you describe them) that you overstayed or that you should've paid more. So basically they seek to impose a £160 penalty (and make no mistake its a penalty) for merely paying more slowly than they'd like. 

That is the only alleged breach of contract argument they plead and the only one which you are required to respond to. 

Personally I'd draft something a bit more bespoke for this than drowning the key issues in boilerplate. This needs to read like an unmeritorious and disproportionate claim to bring.

Yeah, paying more slowly than they'd like is a good way to say it. I'll tailor it a bit more in the witness statement as you suggest. Not a multi-storey but still 6 mins is within the grace period isn't it?
I feel so out of my depth here that I'm not sure if these facts were a valid approach legally, but they certainly resonate with me as the most ridiculous and disproportionate aspects of the whole thing! I guess if the court dismisses the case before hearing based on the inflated charge etc. that would be ideal - then I don't even have to get into the details of it.
Thanks for reading my case well and picking up on the details.