Civil Enforcement - "On Claim for Debt"

Coupon-mad

Yes if you take photos in the dark to illustrate who the signs are not lit and only the machine is...and that suggests fees only until 7pm.

nosferatu1001

We need to see all the info. Signs plus machine
You are as a consumer entitled to rely on the information given to you (CRA2015) and so could rely on the machine being correct. If it isnt, trough on them.
You as a consumer in a case of ambiguity or conflict must be given the most favourable interpretation, CRA2015, in which case again the machine sayt charges only until... wins
But show us BOTH the signs and what the machine said. 

Justme2020

nosferatu1001 said:

We need to see all the info. Signs plus machine
You are as a consumer entitled to rely on the information given to you (CRA2015) and so could rely on the machine being correct. If it isnt, trough on them.
You as a consumer in a case of ambiguity or conflict must be given the most favourable interpretation, CRA2015, in which case again the machine sayt charges only until... wins
But show us BOTH the signs and what the machine said. 

Thanks. I'll revisit the site tomorrow, however, as this was almost 2yrs ago, there's a solid chance they may have changed or upgraded the signage.

Justme2020

This suggests to me that fees only apply through to 19:00

KeithP

Justme2020 said:

This suggests to me that fees only apply through to 19:00

Yes, that part of the sign does suggest no charge after 7pm.
But as you haven't shown us the rest of the sign we have no idea what else it might be saying.

KeithP

Keep in mind that you have until next Monday to file a Defence.

It really does bother me that you appear not to be treating this with any urgency.

Just one example...
Quite late on Saturday evening you were asked to...

nosferatu1001 said:

Show us pics of the signs. You definitely need them. 

Over 48 hours later, you ask "which ones?" and tell us there is a conflict.
If there are conflicting signs then of course it is important for us to see enough signs so that conflict is demonstrated.

Justme2020

KeithP said:

Keep in mind that you have until next Monday to file a Defence.

It really does bother me that you appear not to be treating this with any urgency.

Just one example...
Quite late on Saturday evening you were asked to...

nosferatu1001 said:

Show us pics of the signs. You definitely need them. 

Over 48 hours later, you ask "which ones?" and tell us there is a conflict.
If there are conflicting signs then of course it is important for us to see enough signs so that conflict is demonstrated.

Hi Keith, I haven't given this the full attention this requires but am working on it now.

That photo is of the Ticket Machine and I can go this morning to revisit the site, however, as flagged, this was almost 2yrs ago so the chances are the signage in the car park might have changed. If I show you a photo of that, it doesn't really mean much as it's so much later than the alleged offence

nosferatu1001

Except you, of course, can work out if you think signsd HAVE changed, and tell us how you think they have changed
WHy did you show such a close up? We said "sign", not "part of the sign"

Justme2020

This is what I have so far. I would really appreciate a critique. Thanks in advance;

2.    The Defendant is the lessee of the vehicle and liability is denied.

3. The Defendant arrived at these premises at approximately 18:00 on a dark evening and observed the label on the Parking Ticket machine which suggested that a fee is only due until 19:00 (photographic evidence available). A fee was paid of £1.50 to cover the period from 18:00 to 19:00. The Defendant was then presented with a claim for loss from the Claimant for £100, alleging that rates are payable 24hrs a day and that the Defendant overstayed the paid period by approximately 2 hours. The Claimant believes that they have incurred a loss of £100, which would have been reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days, however, the Defendant does not acknowledge that an offence has been committed or that such a loss has been incurred, and that the amount claimed is far disproportionate to any tariffs allegedly not paid on the date in question (£3.00). 

nosferatu1001

No brackets. A defence asserts, a WS proves. Of course you prove your assertions later, so no need to say now

Dont say it suggested! It states charges from 7am to 7pm, no charge for later an d  no mention on the payment machine that other terms were applicable after 7pm

Did they "claim for loss"? really? Or did they in fact send an invoice for a parking charge, stating contrary to the signage that charges applioed 24 horus per day. 

" The Claimant believes that they have incurred a loss of £100, which would have been reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days,"
I bet they have never, ever said that. 

"that an offence has been committed "
They never said that. 

Where does £3 come from? Dont make up a tarrif that may have been applicable
"No l;oss" is effectively dead since PE v Beavis 2015