Fighting a Parking fine due to a faulty meter at small claims stage

Coupon-mad

Snakes_Belly said:

"This happened because although I had put enough money in the meter to cover my stay, the screen that displays the balance was broken, so when I pressed the green button to issue the ticket it did not give me the full time, as it must have missed counting one of the pound coins" dvdccd 


"I asked the 'officer' at Ladywell car park in Birmingham how much the parking charge was. As it was in the evening he told me it was £6 until the following morning, I was in a hurry as I was late for a show at the Hippodrome so I ran to the machine paid in £6 in coins and put the ticket in the car without even looking at it.

I had a PCN when I returned 3 hours later. It seems although I paid £6 only £5 registered and I was only given one hour. I assumed one coin was rejected but in my rush I never noticed and simply pressed the ticket button after inserting 6 £1 coins."
Jimsnap

A bit of a trend going on here. Birmingham, same operator. Machines that miss count pound coins.

Bit of a pattern indeed about badly maintained car parks and machines provided by ex-clamper Walton Wilkins.

Quite unusual this scam, with pound coins are not being counted or returned.

dvdccd

Right, I am planning to ping off my defence shorty, would someone mind taking a look:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant was also the driver.
3.      Upon the Defendants entry to Jennens Road car park, there were no immediately visible signs that conveyed the parking terms and penalties, additionally no legible signage was visible from a parked position.
4.         At 13:47 on the 08/02/2019, the defendant purchased their parking ticket electing to use the left hand meter, as it was raining heavily, and the right-hand meter was in use. The defendant entered three pound coins into the parking meter, to cover a £2.80 four hour stay. The defendant did observe there was no readout on the LCD display of the parking meter, but as no coins returned had no cause to doubt that the meter had registered the full amount entered. The Defendant proceeded to issue and display the ticket in the vehicle’s windscreen.
5.         At 14:24 on the 08/02/2019, the Defendant returned to their vehicle to find a yellow sticker penalty charge notice attached to their vehicle’s windscreen. 
6.         The first written communication following the initial windscreen parking charge notice was received over a year later, on the 12/10/2020 from DCB Legal Ltd. The Defendant explained the circumstances of the faulty meter to DCB Legal, however DCB Legal’s response was that the opportunity to appeal the ticket had passed and that there was no recourse but to pay the parking charge, plus fees amounting to £160.
7.         When the defendant queried why a Notice to Keeper had not been received. DCB Legal provided and PDF copy from the defendant. The document provided dated 26/03/2019.

I've re-worded it a bit, to hopefully make it flow a little better.
I added number 7 because they might have requested my details too early (under 28 days) but I'm waiting on a SAR from the DVLA to confirm.

KeithP

Replace para 2 with:
2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

Replace para 5 with:
5.         At 14:24 on the 08/02/2019, the Defendant returned to their vehicle to find a yellow sticker parking charge notice attached to their vehicle’s windscreen. 

Replace para 7 with:
7.         When the defendant queried why a Notice to Keeper had not been received. DCB Legal provided a PDF copy from the defendant. The document provided is dated 26/03/2019.

nosferatu1001

As you are admitting to being the driver then even if they did request your info too early, that is irrelevant. Too early means they cant hold the keeper liable, but can still hold the driver liable. 

dvdccd

nosferatu1001 said:

As you are admitting to being the driver then even if they did request your info too early, that is irrelevant. Too early means they cant hold the keeper liable, but can still hold the driver liable. 

I see, what your saying but if they did is it not worth mentioning, as it would show they did not follow correct procedures?

dvdccd

Is it worth mentioning that I was there to sit an exam, so would have not entered a fee less than the time I knew I needed to stay?

dvdccd

I thought about adding this as a new point 4:

4.      The purpose of the defendant’s visit on the 08/02/2019, was to sit a proctored exam, that started at 12:30 and could last up to 150 minutes in duration, held at the Millennium Point building. The defendant knew in advance, that parking would require sufficient coinage to cover the cost of the parking ticket and time to travel on foot to the exam centre and take the exam. The defendant had prepared for these eventualities as partially evidence by the point in time at the ticket was purchased which allowed 47 minutes before the exam start time. Why would the defendant choose to pay for a 2 hour parking ticket in an area they knew would likely be regularly patrolled, when it was known in advance that the very purpose of their visit could take 2 hours and 20 minutes excluding the time to commute to and from the test centre.

is it a point worth making or not?  ( I should mention the ticket was purchased at 11:46 not 13:47)

nosferatu1001

DOnt ask a question. Make a statement that the D paid for sufficient time. 
No, it is not worth mentioning, because they are not required to use POFA. If they choose not to use POFA, they can request data at any time up to 7 months from the date of incident. SO they DID folllow "proper procedure"
You're making a classic mistake, which is assuming there is a single thing the PPC must do in all cases. There is no such thing. POFA, as regards keper liability, is an option for them. IF they want to use it, they have to follow the steps, but they are not required to use it

dvdccd

nosferatu1001 said:

DOnt ask a question. Make a statement that the D paid for sufficient time. 
No, it is not worth mentioning, because they are not required to use POFA. If they choose not to use POFA, they can request data at any time up to 7 months from the date of incident. SO they DID folllow "proper procedure"
You're making a classic mistake, which is assuming there is a single thing the PPC must do in all cases. There is no such thing. POFA, as regards keper liability, is an option for them. IF they want to use it, they have to follow the steps, but they are not required to use it

That makes sense, thanks for correcting my understanding.
So is it worth making my revised point 4 regarding the purpose of my visit, but rephrasing it as a statement?

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad said:

Snakes_Belly said:

"This happened because although I had put enough money in the meter to cover my stay, the screen that displays the balance was broken, so when I pressed the green button to issue the ticket it did not give me the full time, as it must have missed counting one of the pound coins" dvdccd 


"I asked the 'officer' at Ladywell car park in Birmingham how much the parking charge was. As it was in the evening he told me it was £6 until the following morning, I was in a hurry as I was late for a show at the Hippodrome so I ran to the machine paid in £6 in coins and put the ticket in the car without even looking at it.

I had a PCN when I returned 3 hours later. It seems although I paid £6 only £5 registered and I was only given one hour. I assumed one coin was rejected but in my rush I never noticed and simply pressed the ticket button after inserting 6 £1 coins."
Jimsnap

A bit of a trend going on here. Birmingham, same operator. Machines that miss count pound coins.

Bit of a pattern indeed about badly maintained car parks and machines provided by ex-clamper Walton Wilkins.

Quite unusual this scam, with pound coins are not being counted or returned.

The cynic in me thinks that Mr Wilkins' company has bought ticket machines that are incredibly old, unreliable and possible not up to standards - I wonder what a full audit of the electrical systems in these car parks would turn up?

Especially if one of the locations has a flooding issue because if the water gets into the conduits for the electric supply to the ticket machines, they could fail and/or severely hurt someone (or worse).