Britannia Parking PCN - claim of 50p underpayment - draft defence

StuK

Background
I received a PCN in December 2017 from Britannia Parking. My wife had parked in a multi-storey car park to do some Christmas shopping, she paid for all day parking (or thought she had), but I received a letter (as registered keeper of the car) from Britannia saying that I hadn’t paid for the full duration of the parking. The tariff was £1.20 for 3 hours and £3.50 for all day. I initially responded with an appeal, providing a scanned copy of the ticket and confirming that my wife was the driver.  Their response indicated that the ticket showed payment of £3.00 and not £3.50 - until that point neither my wife nor me had realised that. We appealed to Britannia and to POPLA, stating that it was clearly not her intention to only pay for 3 hours parking but stay longer than that, if that was the case, why would she have overpaid by £1.80 and suggested that the additional 50p must have got stuck in the payment machine without her realising. My wife has confirmed that she knew that the full tariff was £3.50 and believes that she put £3.50 into the machine, no coins came back pout, therefore she had no reason to check the ticket when it was issued (we know in hindsight that she should have done). Our appeal was rejected by both Britannia and POPLA on the grounds that my wife failed to make the correct payment. There have been a series of debt recovery and law firms that have written to my wife over the course of the last 3 years (most recently BW Legal), each time we have responded by stating that we believe that she had put £3.50 in the machine and that it must have become stuck, also explaining that it would have been illogical for her to deliberately over pay for 3 hours asking with the intention of staying beyond the 3 hours. In the course of the correspondence we have been provided with a bundle of photographic evidence, showing our vehicle arriving at the car park at 0958 and leaving at 1500, a copy of the ticket showing £3.00 payment at 1002, a plan of the car park, detailing the position of all of the signage, photographs of all of the signage (which clearly show that the tariff for up to 1 hour is £0.50, the tariff for up to 3 hours is £1.20 and the tariff for all day is £3.50, it also clearly shows that a £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket or permit; fail to make correct payment; are not parked wholly within a marked bay; are parked in a non-parking restricted area or access bay; are parked in a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge.  There is also some small print which is not legible from the photos.).  We were also provided with the data from the parking machine, which interestingly showed that the person who paid after my wife paid £4 (rather than the £3.50 tariff for all day parking) - see attached photo.

I realise that this doesn't prove that my wife put £3.50 into the machine, as there is evidence further down of someone else making a £4.00 payment, maybe because they didn't have any change.  However, along with the clear display of the tariff signage, confirmation that my wife knew that the tariff for all day parking was £3.50, that she intended to stay well beyond 3 hours (she stayed for 5) and that she believes that she put £3.50 into the machine and no coins were rejected so she had no reason to think she needed to check the printed ticket, I think it is indicative that my wife did put £3.50 into the machine.

County Court Claim
Unfortunately we haven’t had any success with any of our appeals and on 9 February 2021 my wife received a claim form issued by the County Court.  My wife filed the Acknowledgement of Service, stating that she intends to defend all of this claim, on 12 Feb 2021 and the AoS is confirmed as received on 15 Feb 2021.  My understanding is that the Date of Service is 5 days after the Claim issue date, ie 14 Feb 2021 and that we have 28 days from that date to file our defence, ie by 14 March 2021.  I have drafted the defence document, using the template defence posted by @Coupon-mad on this forum and will submit this defence document by email, as suggested by @KeithP  (rather than trying to squeeze it in to the form on the MoneyClaim Online website). 

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions on my draft defence from those more learned than me on this forum.  My understanding is that I should refrain from supplying my supporting evidence at this stage, such as the ticket machine data, as this will need to be supplied later.  Also, should I detail the subsequent letters to and from the various debt collectors/lawyers following the letter to Britannia on 25 April 2018?

If this does get to Court hearing stage, my wife is quite nervous about appearing (or being on a call) by herself, so I will ask to speak for her as a lay representative.  Do I need to inform the Court that these are our intentions already, or is that later on down the line?

Draft Defence

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.      The Defendant entered the private car park at Milton Keynes - Avebury MSCP Milton Keynes at 0958 on 13 December 2017.  The Defendant observed the signs located by the ticket machine, noting that the tariff for all day parking was £3.50, the Defendant duly put £3.50 into ticket machine number C2304 to pay for all day parking.  No coins were rejected by the ticket machine, the Defendant printed the ticket and had no cause to check that the printed ticket had registered the full payment.  The Defendant returned to the car and left the car park at 1500 on 13 December 2017.

On 20 December 2017 the Claimant issued a Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") to the registered keeper of the vehicle.  On 22 December 2017 the Defendant submitted an appeal to the Claimant, notifying them that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time and that a valid ticket had been purchased.  The Claimant responded on 17 January 2018, rejecting the appeal on the basis that the PCN was correctly issued because the pay and display ticket had expired.  It was only at this point that the Defendant realised that the ticket showed that a payment of £3.00 had been registered, rather than the £3.50 that the Defendant had put into the ticket machine.

The Defendant appealed to POPLA, stating that they were not aware that 50p that they had put into the machine had not been registered and therefore the Defendant had no reason to check the expiry of the ticket because they believed they had paid for all day parking.  The Defendant also reasoned within the appeal to POPLA that if the intention had been to avoid paying for all day parking and to stay beyond the permitted time, it would not make sense to overpay for up to 3 hours parking by £1.20 (the tariff for all day parking was £3.50 and the tariff for up to 3 hours parking was £1.20).  POPLA rejected the appeal on 22 February 2018 on the grounds that the Defendant parked without making a payment for the full duration of parking, the terms and conditions of the contract were not met and concluded that the Claimant issued the PCN correctly.

The Claimant wrote to the Defendant on 8 March 2018, requesting payment of the Parking Charge. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 25 April 2018 suggesting that the ticket machine must have been faulty as it did not register 50p that was paid into it by the Defendant and setting out, as had been done in the appeal to POPLA, that it would seem unreasonable and nonsensical to deliberately overpay for 3 hours parking by £1.80 in order to avoid paying an additional 50p for all day parking.

D_P_Dance

They are not claiming for an underpayment of 50p/ They are claiming considerably more fot the harm they allege you have inflicted upon them by breaching a contract thye allege you entered into with them.  Have you complained to your MP?

From what you have told us, imo they are likely to struggle if they take this to court,  

StuK

D_P_Dance said:

They are not claiming for an underpayment of 50p/ They are claiming considerably more fot the harm they allege you have inflicted upon them by breaching a contract thye allege you entered into with them.  Have you complained to your MP?

From what you have told us, imo they are likely to struggle if they take this to court,  

My MP is Nadine Dorries - I wouldn't expect too much!

Redx

Received date is not the same date as issue date , so post the issue date below

My point ? A letter takes say 2 days to be received after posting , plus nobody is interested in when it was received

The MCOL claim history will give exact details , check it and post that history

nosferatu1001

I gave up reading thge wall of text. 
We dont need war and peace, but concise, brief facts as background, plus your para 2 amd 3 for the defence template

KeithP

StuK said:

Unfortunately we haven’t had any success with any of our appeals and on 9 February 2021 my wife received a claim form issued by the County Court.  My wife filed the Acknowledgement of Service, stating that she intends to defend all of this claim, on 12 Feb 2021 and the AoS is confirmed as received on 15 Feb 2021.  My understanding is that the Date of Service is 5 days after the Claim issue date, ie 14 Feb 2021 and that we have 28 days from that date to file our defence, ie by 14 March 2021.  

You may well be right with your Defence filing deadline.

You don't actually say it, but if the Claim Issue Date is 9th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, your wife does indeed have until 4pm on Monday 14th March 2021 to file her Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, and it is good to see that she is not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Umkomaas

You need to be checking carefully which 'Britannia Parking' name is showing on the Letter of Claim, the Notice to Keeper, the signage on site, the landowner contractor (when you get that with their Witness Statement), because what's in a name, can be extremely helpful to your case. 

Britannia have a number of business names (all contain the name 'Britannia', but each slightly different to the other) which they use and which have been their downfall in some of the cases they have pursued through the courts. They need to have all their ducks in a row on the name front; your task is to find the chink(s) in their armour. Do it successfully and it may even cause them to discontinue.

nosferatu1001

In other words, unless the name is the same, they arent the same legal entity, and they have no hope
the name on the signs is who you make any alleged contract with, the landholder contract authorising them to be there might be with another company entirely though - even if it hbas Britannia in the name, if it is a different name, it is a differnet entity and is a STRANGER to you

StuK

nosferatu1001 said:

I gave up reading thge wall of text. 
We dont need war and peace, but concise, brief facts as background, plus your para 2 amd 3 for the defence template

Sorry, it was rather verbose! In summarily wife believe that she paid £3.50 for all day parking, the machine only registered £3.00.  She received a PCN stating that she had only paid for up to 3 hours parking (the tariff for that is £1.20). She was well aware that it was £3.50 for all day parking and believes that's what she put in the machine, no coins were rejected, so she had no reason to believe she hadn't paid in full and therefore didn't check the printed ticket.  Evidence from the parking machine data shows that the next customer paid £4.00 for a £3.50 tariff, therefore it may be reasonable to assume that my wife's 'missing' 50p became unlodged when the next customer went to pay.

My wife has received a County Court Claim form and has lodged an AOS.  The deadline for filing her defence document is 14 March.  I have drafted paras 2 and 3 for her, which are as follows
The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.      The Defendant entered the private car park at Milton Keynes - Avebury MSCP Milton Keynes at 0958 on 13 December 2017.  The Defendant observed the signs located by the ticket machine, noting that the tariff for all day parking was £3.50, the Defendant duly put £3.50 into ticket machine number C2304 to pay for all day parking.  No coins were rejected by the ticket machine, the Defendant printed the ticket and had no cause to check that the printed ticket had registered the full payment.  The Defendant returned to the car and left the car park at 1500 on 13 December 2017.

On 20 December 2017 the Claimant issued a Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") to the registered keeper of the vehicle.  On 22 December 2017 the Defendant submitted an appeal to the Claimant, notifying them that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time and that a valid ticket had been purchased.  The Claimant responded on 17 January 2018, rejecting the appeal on the basis that the PCN was correctly issued because the pay and display ticket had expired.  It was only at this point that the Defendant realised that the ticket showed that a payment of £3.00 had been registered, rather than the £3.50 that the Defendant had put into the ticket machine.

The Defendant appealed to POPLA, stating that they were not aware that 50p that they had put into the machine had not been registered and therefore the Defendant had no reason to check the expiry of the ticket because they believed they had paid for all day parking.  The Defendant also reasoned within the appeal to POPLA that if the intention had been to avoid paying for all day parking and to stay beyond the permitted time, it would not make sense to overpay for up to 3 hours parking by £1.20 (the tariff for all day parking was £3.50 and the tariff for up to 3 hours parking was £1.20).  POPLA rejected the appeal on 22 February 2018 on the grounds that the Defendant parked without making a payment for the full duration of parking, the terms and conditions of the contract were not met and concluded that the Claimant issued the PCN correctly.

The Claimant wrote to the Defendant on 8 March 2018, requesting payment of the Parking Charge. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 25 April 2018 suggesting that the ticket machine must have been faulty as it did not register 50p that was paid into it by the Defendant and setting out, as had been done in the appeal to POPLA, that it would seem unreasonable and nonsensical to deliberately overpay for 3 hours parking by £1.80 in order to avoid paying an additional 50p for all day parking.

Does para 3 need to be shortened? Is detail of the subsequent appeals and correspondence relevant, or can it be removed?

Should I make reference to the evidence from the parking machine of the next customer paying £4.00, or is that best kept until the request for evidence?

Redx

Paragraph 3 should be a short , concise , setting the scene paragraph or two , also letting the judge know the basics plus any legal defence points , most of the above is part of the witness statement plus exhibits plus the summary costs assessment stage in several months time

So get again , not war and peace

StuK

Hi, I've re-worked my defence and have significantly shortened it.  Please let me know if you have any further comments or suggested changes.
The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.       The Defendant entered the Pay and Display car park at 0958 on 13 December 2017.  Signage by the Pay and Display terminal stated that the tariff for all day parking was £3.50 and the tariff for up to 3 hours parking was £1.20.  The Defendant put the correct payment of £3.50 for all day parking into the ticket machine, but the machine only registered £3.00 and issued a ticket for 3 hours.  No coins were rejected by the machine, so the defendant was not aware at the time that the full payment of £3.50 had not registered.  The Defendant left the car park at 1500 on 13 December 2017.

4.      Despite issuing a ticket worth only £1.20 for 3 hours parking, the ticket machine did not return the £1.80 overpayment.  Had it done so, the Defendant would have been made aware of the problem at the time; the Defendant would not have intended to pay £3.00 for a £1.20 ticket.  The Defendant submits that the ticket machine was faulty due to its failure to register all of the coins inserted.