DCB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics (Hearing Day 😞)

Th1nDiesel

Redx said:

I ALWAYS wondered how to spell Adhered !!! It seems that WW needs to know too. 😋😋

That made me chuckle too; it's not the only mistake either.

Redx

I am not convinced about your assertion of forbidding signage because by your own admission a valid ticket was purchased and correctly displayed , so it's more a case of De minimis , ticket not fit for purpose , driver defendant complied with the signage in full , no NTD on your return to alert you to the issue found by the attendant , no ability to deal with the NTD etc

nosferatu1001

Redx - I disagree
The claimant is stating no ticket so contracty broken
Trouble is, on that assertion by them, there can never be a contract: if you dont hav ea valid ticket, you are not permitted to park aka it is a forbidding contract
You can also state as amatter of fact you DID have a ticket, but the ticket was so shoiddy it flipped ove r- it wasnt fit for purpose
AND
you can point out that the point of the ticket is to prove purchase, this was done, so anything left is a triviality
These are all independent points, and leads the claimant no room: they either accept there was a ticket, which they supplied and clealry wasnt fit for purpose / its a de minimis breach at best, or they continue to deny there was a ticket, in which case there was never a contrqact in the first place

Redx

ah , I see

so the claimant says no ticket (it was elsewhere in the vehicle) , so the forbidding contract applies to their claim if this was true due to forbidding signage)

on the other hand

there was actually a valid and paid for ticket in the vehicle, meaning what I said is still correct as a defence, as de minimis etc

gotcha now, but didnt see how both could apply earlier , hence my post above

Th1nDiesel

@redx @nosferatu1001

Thank you both for your comments.

Yes, the claimant says there was no ticket, which there was, so point 3 of my defence was built on the fluttering ticket argument. Sadly, I don't have the ticket any more, though had I received a windscreen PCN (which the claimant claims I did) I would have kept it - something which I am also including in my witness statement.

Based on your comments I will include the forbidding signage argument as well; I didn't address this specifically in my defence, but I assume this will just be an expansion of the signage points that were mentioned.

Redx

a shame you dont have that paid for ticket, your receipt to prove the contract, read this article from MSE from 4 years ago

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2017/05/throwing-pay-display-ticket-away-use-cost-100/

nosferatu1001

You can give credible evidence to buying the ticket etc. Was it cash? If card may show up.

Th1nDiesel

I know, it's gutting. It was a cash only machine, so no proof of purchase sadly. The closest I have is another ticket from the same car park about a month later, which proves nothing. ☹️ It was still in the vehicle when the NTK arrived, so I kept it just in case.

nosferatu1001

YOU can give CREDIBLE evidence. 
WItnesses are evidence. I dont know why people forget that!

D_P_Dance

Why do you need proof.?  The judge, if it gets t court, has to decide, OTBOP, whether.you are telli.ng the truth or not.  .