Money Claim - Going Court for Private Parking PCN

bergkamp10

Umkomaas said:

But I believe the most important bit of information is the machine logs on the day of they claim my friend overstayed (at the least around the hours he was there). That should hopefully clearly show that he'd paid because, like he said, he is adamant that was the only time he'd been there and knows he paid twice (actually leaving class just to add a second payment).

They won't easily or voluntarily hand that over, PPCs rarely do, unless/until it gets to evidence submitted with a Witness Statement. 

Ah, so they will be submitting it at WS stage or will they need to be pressurised to do so? 

I have looked at the following website which details various parking spots in London. People can comment and review the parking places based on their experiences. It seems these guys have done this to so many people in the comments section. People saying they paid but are still getting tickets.

https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/greenwich_high_road/se10/london/?arriving=202103021530&leaving=202103021730

nosferatu1001

You put them to strict proof that your VRM or a close match they should have identified as yours was not on the logs
The only way for them to prove so is to provide a full log list
If they dont, when they file their WS, you ask the court to draw the obvious conclusion that this is because no such evidence exists, and they have not proven their claim

bergkamp10

nosferatu1001 said:

You put them to strict proof that your VRM or a close match they should have identified as yours was not on the logs
The only way for them to prove so is to provide a full log list
If they dont, when they file their WS, you ask the court to draw the obvious conclusion that this is because no such evidence exists, and they have not proven their claim

Thanks. I don't get the first bit before the bolded part. Is my friend claiming to the court as part of his defence that his VRM or a close match should be on the logs as he had paid, or is he to send some other communication to CEL asking them to prove that there was not his VRM or a close match? I mean at which stage does he demand this? To CEL before defence, as part of the defence or at some later stage?

nosferatu1001

IN the defence of course. That is where you set out legal arguments. this is a legalargument., Strict proof means - prove your claim. They calim he didnt pay, so you get them to prove their claim
If your friend paid, and input their VRM, it would show in the logs. 

bergkamp10

nosferatu1001 said:

IN the defence of course. That is where you set out legal arguments. this is a legalargument., Strict proof means - prove your claim. They calim he didnt pay, so you get them to prove their claim
If your friend paid, and input their VRM, it would show in the logs. 

Ok, thanks Nosferatu. Much appreciated. I have redrafted points 2 and 3 for my friend in this regards. Does it look good? Also are there any changes we should make in the other points in relation to the case or should just use the draft defence template as it is? 

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

3.      On the date in question the Defendant admits to being the driver and having parked on the premises. The area was not familiar to the Defendant and but remembers clearly the events of the date as it was the one and only time he had ever visited the area. As he was in a class he parked and paid for a ticket to park his vehicle whilst he was in class. The defendant also clearly remembers going back to the vehicle shortly before the expiry of the original ticket to purchase a second ticket to extend the time allowed for his vehicle to be parked. The tickets were both displayed at the time on the dashboard of the vehicle. This information should be available to the Claimant in their machine logs of VRMs on the date in question.

4.    The Claimant claims in the Notice to Hirer/Keeper that "Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage". The Defendant appealed to the Claimant explaining that he had paid for parking on the date in question however the Claimant rejected the appeal. The Defendant is certain he paid for two tickets on the day in question and theachine logs should reflect the Defendant's VRM, or at least a close partial match.

5.      If the machine did not accurately record the VRM then this must have been due to an error on the machine which prevented the VRM of the Defendant being logged correctly. In this case the Claimant should have properly considered the Defendant’s appeal by investigating all of the tickets purchased around the time to ensure there were no instances of (fluttering ticket situations) or of the machine registering keystrokes of VRMs wrongly. If the Claimant is claiming that the Defendent did not make a "payment... In accordance with the terms displayed on the signage" then they must provide strict proof of this.

KeithP

The second sentence in para 2 is superfluous, and that information is repeated a third time at the start of para 3.

I've not read your para 3 - it's too long. Split it into several paragraphs (and adjust subsequent paragraph numbering) if it is all needed.

bergkamp10

KeithP said:

The second sentence in para 2 is superfluous, and that information is repeated a third time at the start of para 3.

I've not read your para 3 - it's too long. Split it into several paragraphs (and adjust subsequent paragraph numbering) if it is all needed.

Thanks. Removed the second sentence.

With regards to number 3. I believed the information was all linked so put it together but yes it does look a bit long. I have split it into 3 paras and renumbered them.

How does it look now. Need as much advice and comments as possible before I get my friend to submit tomorrow. Thanks again everyone.

bergkamp10

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

By the way, I have read a case between Excel Parking vs Wilkinson on July 2nd, 2020 (linked above) whereby the judge struck out the claim for an abuse of process based on the fact that not only were the charges unexplained and contradictory, they realised that PPCs are using it as a way of getting these amounts from most of the people that they charge, as only very few reach court to defend their case. I notice in the defence template it talks about the CRA and the unfair terms which the reasons the judge in the case above would have removed those extra charges, but the abuse of process relying on CCJs or fear forcing people to pay the higher amounts was the reason it was struck completely. Any need to site some of that?

I noticed in some of the older Defence Templates on here mention abuse of process and a similar argument to that which the judge in the Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson but the template has changed more recently and doesn't include those sections anymore. Has something changed since then to not need those points?

Umkomaas

By the way, I have read a case between Excel Parking vs Wilkinson on July 2nd, 2020 (linked above) whereby the judge struck out the claim for an abuse of process based on the fact that not only were the charges unexplained and contradictory, they realised that PPCs are using it as a way of getting these amounts from most of the people that they charge, as only very few reach court to defend their case.

We're well aware of Excel v Wilkinson. In fact it was me who alerted the PePiPoo forum to the case, from where you seem to have found the Dropbox link?

This forum is well ahead of the game in almost all respects. 😊

bergkamp10

Umkomaas said:

By the way, I have read a case between Excel Parking vs Wilkinson on July 2nd, 2020 (linked above) whereby the judge struck out the claim for an abuse of process based on the fact that not only were the charges unexplained and contradictory, they realised that PPCs are using it as a way of getting these amounts from most of the people that they charge, as only very few reach court to defend their case.

We're well aware of Excel v Wilkinson. In fact it was me who alerted the PePiPoo forum to the case, from where you seem to have found the Dropbox link?

This forum is well ahead of the game in almost all respects. 😊

Haha I appreciate that. Yes, I got the link from there. Is there any reason that the bits about abuse of process have been removed from the template defence or is that no longer an issue.