PPS / BW Legal Claim - Paid for parking, incorrect Vehicle Registration Number - WON

Chico_talent

Can i start off by saying thank you to everyone who take there time to give advice on this forum.  Since receiving my PCN, you have gave me the information and courage to fight their claim.

Background 

My family and I went for a day at the beach in Devon in Aug 19.  We parked up, went to the pay and display machine, entered the amount of time required and paid via contactless payment.  The machine printed a ticket which we displayed in the car.  We had a good day at the beach and left before the expiration time.

Around 2 weeks later we received a PCN, thinking that this was just a  simple admin error, i emailed the company explaining i paid and included a photocopy of the ticket the machine printed out as well as a bank statement showing that PPS had taken the money out of my account. I received an email a little while later saying my appeal had ben turned down as i didn't include a full registration number as required by their T&C.

The T&C they reference at the site states "When paying by phone or when required to enter full and exact registration details to authorise parking".  My argument is that "When required" is ambiguous and does not mean always, it means "when required".  Their Pay and display machine never asked for a registration number, only to enter the hours of parking required.  As such i did not believe i had to provide one.  In fact i believed, the T&C they refer to is aimed at phone paying or app based customers as no printed ticket could be provided, and the fact they start it by "When paying by phone" only reenforces this idea and leads to confusion.

PPS have argued that there is a picture flow chart showing how to use the machine, however the text they use is the smallest out of all their posters on site swell as the pictures being confusing and not very clear.  In fact, i barely noticed them, instead, i filled the instructions on the LCD of the pay and display machine and at no time did it ask for a registration number or indicate that i had did something wrong.  Shouldn't their LCD machine take a customer through the correct process of getting a ticket and should contain no pitfalls or traps.

Instead, the machine printed a ticket which the letters PP where the registration number should.

What followed was the obvious to and throw and an IAS appeal in which the i lost.  IPC stated the fact that the letters PP show on the ticket shows that i started to enter my registration number so knew that it had to be entered (My reg does start with a P).  Its beyond me, to understand why a paying customer would start to enter a reg number and half way through decide not to finish it or the fact that there machine accepts 2 letter registration numbers.

To save time, I lost the IAS appeal (i can hear the how surprised you all are), PPS demanded money, i refused, BW legal demand even more money, I again explain my case even referencing cases that had gone before with incorrect Reg No. but they still demanded money so now were at the Claim form stage which i received today.

Im about to do the AoS and tomorrow, once I've reviewed your points about my defence which i will link to a dropbox for you all to read, i will submit that.

One other bump which i need advice on is:-  Im in the Royal Navy, more over I'm a submariner. As such i go to sea quite often as part of my job.  If i receive my hearing date whilst I'm deployed is it possible for my wife to email the court explaining my situation and rebook for a date when I'm back.  I would like to think that a state institution like the Courts would not discriminate my based on my job especially as I'm a member of the Armed Forces (Armed Forces Covenant should stop companies from unfairly disadvantaging members of the armed forces purely due to their unique nature of their Job).  I would like to think that even the courts will allow me to defend myself from these companies and will be understanding about the nature of my job and the fact i can not easily get back from the middle of the ocean to attend a hearing.

Here are the link to my defence, please just change the hxxps: to https: as I've not been here long enough to post links

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/bawzs4g9e6trdwj/DEFENCE%20Blacked%20out.pdf?dl=0

Many thanks in advance!!

Coupon-mad

Your hearing can be by phone or on the papers and won't be until 2021. So no need to worry about that yet, crack on as if you csan attend a phone hearing.

i filled the instructions on the LCD of the pay and display machine and at no time did it ask for a registration number or indicate that i had did something wrong.  Shouldn't their LCD machine take a customer through the correct process of getting a ticket and should contain no pitfalls or traps.

Yes.

Instead, the machine printed a ticket which the letters PP where the registration number.

Sounds familiar.  This is a known fault with some PDT machines.  
Please download CS033 Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 (Peel Centre ticket failure) when you need it at WS & evidence stage.
available on the Prankster Site in the case law section.
The final paragraph is reproduced here.

I am satisfied that the ticket then produced is the ticket that she has produced to the court. It was through no fault of hers that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned.

The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. Accordingly, I am going to dismiss the claim

Reported in a blog here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/10/peel-centre-machine-failure-transcript.html

Redx

post the issue date from the claim form below

email a SAR if not done already to the DPO at PPS

only do the AOS if 5 days or preferably more have elapsed since the issue date , ideally 6 or more but no more than 19

you (not your wife) can tell the court dates that are unavailable in 2021, but that comes at your DQ stage

Chico_talent

The issue date is 21 Oct, i have already done the AoS.

Ive actually been secretly hoping they take me to court.  Its never been about the money, more the fact that i feel they are scamming me.

As such, i already wrote my defence/ WS/ Skeleton argument, have 3 packs made up ready for court.  This was in part just in case they sent the claim form whilst i was at sea and my wife could just fill out the forms and send the stuff I've already made.

I did a SOR for PPS and BW legal, they did respond but didn't include all i request stating that there is no requirement for them to do so.  I did state this in my defence, most annoying they they didn't include a list tickets issued from that machine, redacting full reg numbers and leaving partly or missing reg number present.  Obviously my ticket would be included in that.  So to add extra evidence to prove i paid, i went to my bank and they provided a written statement of where my card was used, the exact time my card was used including seconds and to which  company the money was paid.

Chico_talent

Glad i don't have to worry about losing in court just because i could be at sea.  Is probably my biggest worry.

If the judge decides i should have know better and i lose, ill pay the money straight.  Like i said, it isn't about the money, its about having my  day in court and explain to a judge  why i think they are not operating fairly or legally.

KeithP

Chico_talent said:

The issue date is 21 Oct, i have already done the AoS.

Slow down a bit.

What date does your MCOL Claim History show as your AoS filing date?

By rushing to file an Acknowledgment of Service, you have reduced the time available to you to produce and file a Defence. Did you file the AoS online via the MCOL website or return the form by post?

You go on to mention that you have written a Defence. Have you filed that too?

Chico_talent

I did it online, its reads the 22 Oct.   

I have included my defence via link to a dropbox page.  Sorry for rushing, Im deploying to sea again in just over 2 weeks and probably not back until just before christmas if I'm lucky so want to get ahead of the game so to speak.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 22nd October, you have until 4pm on Thursday 19th November 2020 to file your Defence.

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

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Here's your live link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bawzs4g9e6trdwj/DEFENCE Blacked out.pdf?dl=0

Chico_talent

Thanks keith for posting the link. 
Any suggestions on my defence so far. 

D_P_Dance

Wrong VRNs are small beer.  Many judges regard them as trifling, read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation.,

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers. On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, and hopefully this will become law shortly

Coupon-mad

Chico_talent said:

Thanks keith for posting the link. 
Any suggestions on my defence so far. 

Your Abuse of Process wording is out of date, as is your statement of truth.  The latter is explained in the NEWBIES thread.

The latest abuse of process wording can be found in the example Witness Statement (not the defence) of @blancswann .

Remove the stuff about advertising consent; that's really old.  

Ladak v Locums is not relevant or right, but you will be removing that anyway when you replace the abuse of process wording.

And at #13 I would add (not in bold, this is just to make this reply clear without putting it in quotes):  For the avoidance of doubt, this is undoubtedly a machine error code, due to two factors: the similarity to other cases where then letter 'P' or 'Q' has been printed on tickets by pay and display machines in use in private car parks, and secondly, because the Defendant did not at any point, type 'PP' into the machine keypad.