Advice needed - multiple parking charges by Minster Baywatch for parking in electric vehicle bay

blackdog2220

nosferatu1001 said:

Well, you have the template defence. Why are you not using that? 
You add an additional point to THE SIGNAGE section that states the signage does not make any condition of the parking charge applying every day or part thereof, and so only one parking charge could be payable. Thats all you need
You know no evidence gets sent with a defence
While the DVLA SAR info may be helpful, given they know the drivers identity it doesnt help for a POFA argument, and I would be shocked if the  court gives two hoots about them breaking a contract with the DVLA

THE SIGNAGE section that states the signage does not make any condition of the parking charge applying every day or part thereof, and so only one parking charge could be payable.

and indeed the op has accepted that he made a mistake , even tho the signage was unclear (smaller add on sign) and paid the first day parking ticket in full , it is day 2 and day that the charges are for 
so this comes down to if the sign says every day/24 hr or not 

nosferatu1001

Which according to the OP, the sign does not state that. 

KeithP

Remember that the OP told us yesterday...

Feeling I had no choice, I paid PCN number 1087421 on 10/09/20, leaving the duplicate charges on PCN’s 1087424 and 1086726 and totaling £200 as unpaid.  

In paying the first PCN 1087421 charge of £100, I believe that I behaved in an appropriate way to settle any charge which may have been due on my part for breaching the T & C’s and that any further PCN’s issued for this same breach were issued incorrectly by MBW as the £100 parking charge stipulated in their T & C’s was not time specific or dependent on duration of parking and they are therefore duplicates of the same parking charge.

blackdog2220

so its a win in court hopefully , with the added bonus of stating that they defrauded the DVLA and failed to comply with BPA code of conduct 

nej123

Quick question, the Claim Form (N1) stated my name incorrectly.  When I filed the AOS I stated my correct name so this now shows on the MCOL documents.  Should my defence now state my correct name or the name to which Gladstone's entered it on the N1?  Apologies if this sounds like a silly question!

nej123

Thank you everyone for your help so far with with this.  
I have drafted this to insert for #3 for the template defence - please let me have any advice you think may help

The Defendant parked at Peel Street Car Park on 5 August 2020. Returning to their car on 8 August, the defendant paid the £43.50 parking fee calculated by the machine using ANPR for the duration of their stay from the 5 to 8 August.  Subsequently, the Defendant received via the post to their home address three separate parking charge notices from the Claimant for breaching their stated contractual T & C’s with the reason given as ‘Vehicle was not charging’.  PCN’s were issued as follows:

 

PCN 1087421     Charge £100    Issued 11/08/20      Date of Contravention 06/08/20 

PCN 1087424     Charge £100    Issued 11/08/20      Date of Contravention 07/08/20

PCN 1086726     Charge £100    Issued 12/08/20      Date of Contravention 08/08/20

The Defendant appealed on all 3 charges to the Claimant stating that they were unaware that the bay was for electric vehicle charging only and, moreover, that the Claimant should not be able to make duplicate charges in relation to one breach of the terms of parking (‘the contract’) since the Defendant only entered the car park once. The three appeals were each rejected on 27/08/20.  In the interim, between receiving the original PCN’s and appealing, the Defendant engaged with the Claimant and with the car park’s Management Company but was neither able to resolve the issue of being served with multiple charges or to have their concerns over the way in which the Claimant was operating the enforcement of parking charges heard.

Feeling they had no choice, the Defendant paid PCN number 1087421 for £100 on 10/09/20, leaving the duplicate charges on PCN’s 1087424 and 1086726 and totalling £200 as unpaid.  In paying the first PCN 1087421 charge of £100, the defendant believes that they behaved in an appropriate way to settle any charge which may have been due on their part for breaching the T & C’s and that any further PCN’s issued for this same breach were issued incorrectly by the Claimant as the £100 parking charge stipulated in their T & C’s was not time specific or dependent on the duration of parking and so could only be in relation to the breach itself and are therefore duplicates of the same parking charge.

nosferatu1001

Your correct name of course.  Else you confuse things

Too long.  It's a brief background and some facts. It must be concise. 

nej123

How's this?

The Defendant parked at Peel Street Car Park on 5 August 2020.  Returning to their car on 8 August, the Defendant paid the £43.50 parking fee calculated using ANPR for the duration of their stay.  The Defendant received by post to their home address three separate parking charge notices from the Claimant for breaching their stated contractual T & C’s with the reason given as ‘Vehicle was not charging’.  PCN’s were as follows:

PCN 1087421     Charge £100    Issued 11/08/20      Date of Contravention 06/08/20 

PCN 1087424     Charge £100    Issued 11/08/20      Date of Contravention 07/08/20

PCN 1086726     Charge £100    Issued 12/08/20      Date of Contravention 08/08/20

The Defendant appealed on all 3 charges to the Claimant stating that they were unaware that the bay was for electric vehicle charging only and, moreover, that the Claimant should not be able to make duplicate charges in relation to one breach of the terms of parking (‘the contract’) since the Defendant only entered the car park once. The three appeals were each rejected on 27/08/20.  The Defendant paid PCN number 1087421 for £100 on 10/09/20, leaving the duplicate charges on PCN’s 1087424 and 1086726 and totalling £200 as unpaid.  In paying the first PCN 1087421 charge of £100, the Defendant believes that they behaved in an appropriate way to settle any charge which may have been due on their part for breaching the T & C’s and that any further PCN’s issued for this same breach were issued incorrectly by the Claimant as the £100 parking charge stipulated in their T & C’s was not time specific or dependent on the duration of parking and so could only be in relation to the breach itself and are therefore duplicates of the same parking charge.

Coupon-mad

Add a final sentence there:

To be clear, there was only one parking event, and the Defendant paid the first PCN despite the signage about the bay being obscure and less clear than the 'pay and display sign.  The Defendant has paid £143.40 and the Claimant has not reduced any of the duplicate PCNs by the parking charge (tariff) paid in good faith.

nej123

Thank you all so much for your help. CM & CP your advice and examples in the Newbie thread have been brilliant, thank you. Have now filed my Defence using the template and submitted to the CCBCAQ.  Will update here when I hear further