Parkingeye overstay with breastfeeding

Coupon-mad

I believe that the facts contained in this defence statement are true.

Defence looks good. 

I'd remove #17 from the end because they ARE 'only' claiming £100 plus court & legal fees.

Also remove this and re-number the rest:

7.1. The Defendant avers that the claim was premature and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the letters they say were sent and where they were posted to, after the PCN itself, and evidence from their case status data that a Letter before Claim and attachments required under the Protocol, were issued, and when/where they were sent.

8. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, for response during June 2020, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

KeithP

Steparius said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

15th June. I asked for the 28 days extension

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th July 2020 to file your Defence.

That's a whole week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Steparius

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Thanks KeithP. The Newbies second thread advices to provide as evidence:
(h) Pay & Display ticket, if the driver paid. DON'T argue 'no loss'!

In the case of alleged overstay, is 'no loss' conceivable as an argument even if the paid ticket is provided also as proof?

Coupon-mad

Not really.  It's more about insufficient grace period for the circumstances of the motorist and passengers.

Umkomaas

'No loss' was pretty much killed by the Learned Lord Justices of The Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Barry Beavis case. Putting "no loss" into any private parking court defence makes little sense, but in one v ParkingEye ........ 😱 

Redx

As above , especially if a driver could have paid for say 3 hours instead of 2 hours

The chances are that the crux of this case will revolve around those 2 arguments , especially as to why a second ticket wasn't purchased to cover the extra time

nosferatu1001

It is incredibly difficutl because no loss arguably works in a pay and display car park, but arguing it succesfully is very difficult. Do yo know how to pull apart the supreme court judgement in Beavis?

Steparius

Redx said:

As above , especially if a driver could have paid for say 3 hours instead of 2 hours

The chances are that the crux of this case will revolve around those 2 arguments , especially as to why a second ticket wasn't purchased to cover the extra time

Thanks for the insights. I don't know if it has legal basis as an argument but buying a second ticket was only possible from the time of purchase until the vehicle exit (which was imminent). In such case the new ticket wouldn't have covered the overtime. A correction would only have been possible if ParkingEye allowed to pay a posteriori for the real time expend on site, which is an option they do not offer.

Redx

but it would have looked better to a judge, 2 payments that more than covered the whole period, and more

perception is what that argument is about, convincing a judge that steps were taken to mitigate any such loss perceived by the claimant

surely you can see you would be in a better position having 2 paid for tickets instead of one ?

you can raise your argument above to a judge, if it wasnt possible to purchase the extra time at all, but if it was possible to purchase 1 or 2 hours parking as a continuation then I fail to see your argument. most parking tickets do not cover the duration of parking, or time on site, you normally decide how long you need and pay for that period, even if you left halfway through the session

its not us you have to convince, its a judge, in county court

post up a picture of the sign from the popla evidence pack or one you took yourself

Umkomaas

Whether buying a second ticket to extend the parking period actually works is debatable. There are many cases on here where this has been done, yet the PPC proceeds with a PCN. It seems the two transactions are not automatically linked, despite the same VRM being used for each of the transactions. 

Looks like the only get around is to leave the car park within the first purchased period (ANPR records exit, no PCN), then making a U-turn outside the car park, re-enter (ANPR records the new entry) and pay for the extra hour. As long as second exit is within the time limit, no PCN. But what a ball-aching rigmarole just because the PPC's eBay purchased computer system cannot cope with a basic linking job!