Received County Court Claims form

JasonHar1

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

JasonHar1

3. On XXXXXXX 2017 I was issued a parking ticket by Premier Parking Solutions for an alleged contractual breach in their car park. My defence is frustration of contract due to a failure of Premier Parking Solution’s online app, which I used on my phone, to attempt to purchase a ticket for the duration of my parking stay. I believed that I had successfully paid on the app, I had entered all the correct details and verified them on the screen and believed the transaction to be complete. Unknown to me there was a confirm button that was concealed further down the screen and not visible without scrolling to the bottom. I did not scroll down as I was unaware of any need to and hence did not see the button. It is not my fault that poor design of the app layout caused me to miss the confirm button and not complete the transaction. This poor design of the app led to the frustration of contract and it was not my fault that the transaction was not completed. Once I returned to the car and found the PCN on the windscreen I returned to the app on my phone and the screen was still there with all my details on. It was only then that by chance, I scrolled down the screen and saw the confirm button. I took a screen print of it and subsequently sent it to PPS to appeal the PCN and explain what had happened. PPS rejected my appeal claiming that I was in breach of contract by not purchasing a ticket for my stay and ignoring the fact that it was a design flaw in their app that had caused me not to complete the transaction in the first place. PPS were not interested that I believed that I had paid for the parking in good faith. I wanted to pay to park and I believed that I had paid to park, PPS only wished to apply punitive and excessive fees as a result of the failures of their online app. I subsequently made drop hand offers for more than the parking charge that was due, which would have covered any losses in revenue that PPS may have suffered, which were refused. From the outset PPS were insistent on penalising me with the full charge of the PCN, regardless of the actual circumstances.

JasonHar1

I have deleted the following sentence as it was repetitious: This poor design of the app led to the frustration of contract and it was not my fault that the transaction was not completed.

Redx

3 above is a witness statement , using the word I in it a lot ( me , my , myself & I )

condense it into facts by THE DEFENDANT , a much shorter version, leave the rest for the WS where you can expand on it, as per your 3 above which you can use later in the process

KeithP

Your paragraph 3 needs rewriting in the third person, and while you're at it, split it into several paragraphs.

Although having said that, most of your para 3 would be better placed in your Witness Statement.

JasonHar1

Thanks, I'll try again...

JasonHar1

Ok, here goes. Comments please? Be gentle. I know how frustrating it must be for you guys to see people like me coming on here and getting it all wrong. However, I am reading up and trying my best! 😊

 

 

This is the particulars of claim on my claim form:

 

The Claim is for the sum of £122.70 being the contractual charge due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on XXXXXXX in the private car park/land at XXXXXXX in relation to a SAAB 93 registration mark XXXXXXX. The The PCN was issued as the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions, as displayed. Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid. The Claim also includes Statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.02) from XXXXXXX to XXXXXXX being an amount of £22.70. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice.

 

 

My draft defence statement:

 

3. The Defendant avers that there is no liability for the sum of £122.70 in respect of the Parking Charge Notice that was issued, as there was no contractual breach. The contract was frustrated as a direct result of the poor design of the Claimant’s online parking payment application (app).

 

The Defendant completed all the required information in the forms in the app, to pay for the parking and believed in good faith that the transaction was complete. The poor design of the app placed a confirm button out of sight, off the bottom of the screen, which was not visible without scrolling down. There was nothing to suggest that the Defendant was required to scroll down to the bottom of the screen to complete the transaction and the Defendant reasonably assumed that it was complete.

 

The Defendant avers that as no breach of contract took place there is also no liability for £22.70 Statutory interest or for the additional £60.00 recovery costs claimed. Additionally, the Defendant avers that recovery costs are included in the original PCN amount of £100.00, otherwise that £100.00 would be entirely set to penalise the Defendant, which would be unlawful.

 

 

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs require a number.  Isn't the third paragraph essentially the same as the first one?  Perhaps you could combine them.  As you have introduced the failure/poor design of the app, you could keep that section short and go into full details in the witness statement at which time you could presumably sort out some screen shots from your phone to prove what you are saying.

JasonHar1

Better?

3. The Defendant avers that there is no liability for the sums of £122.70 in respect of the Parking Charge Notice that was issued, £22.70 Statutory interest, or £60.00 recovery cost, as there was no contractual breach. The contract was frustrated as a direct result of the poor design of the Claimant’s online parking payment application (app).

 

4. Additionally, the Defendant avers that recovery costs are included in the original PCN amount of £100.00, otherwise that £100.00 would be entirely set to penalise the Defendant, which would be unlawful. Therefore, there is no liability for the additional £60.00 recovery charge.

Coupon-mad

Get rid of 'for the sum of £122.70' because there is no need to qualify it and the claim is for a lot more than £122.70. There is no liability for any sum at all.