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

Coupon-mad

The Defendant put the correct payment of £3.50 for all day parking into the ticket machine and no coins were rejected.  However, unbeknown to the Defendant, it later transpired that the machine had only registered £3.00, a sum that does not match any advertised tariff and should not have produced a ticket.

The above reads better, I think.

And I'd add this:

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.   Even if the Claimant asserts that the machine was not faulty, the Defendant avers that it was an unfair transaction that meets the definition of a 'misleading omission' which is unlawful pursuant to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

brianposter

Coupon-mad said:

Even if the Claimant asserts that the machine was not faulty, the Defendant avers that it was an unfair transaction that meets the definition of a 'misleading omission' which is unlawful pursuant to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

IF this is appropriate, it sets up the OP to make a counter-claim

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents                Part 4A

D_P_Dance

Interesting.  We do not see this argued very often.  Are we missing something?

Coupon-mad

No, we do know about the fact that those regulations now include the remedy of suing, for individual consumers, not just Trading Standards.

It was argued in the example counterclaim I showed someone a couple of times on here.  I think the wording about this is in the counterclaims by @ellaro9 and @Nosy which were both based on standard wording I showed them, from a case where the counterclaim was written by a retired barrister (an off forum case, not yet concluded).

D_P_Dance

Thanks CM I read read the PUTR in slower time.  

StuK

Thanks everyone for your input, particularly @Coupon-mad for the suggested wording.  Here are paras 2-4 within the final defence document that will be emailed to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk today:

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 and no coins were rejected. However, unbeknown to the Defendant, it later transpired that the machine had only registered £3.00, a sum that does not match any advertised tariff and should not have produced a ticket.  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.  Even if the Claimant asserts that the machine was not faulty, the Defendant avers that it was an unfair transaction that meets the definition of a ‘misleading omission’, which is unlawful pursuant to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Redx

I think I would add the term frustration of contract into 4 as well

StuK

The Defence document was emailed yesterday and the MCOL website is showing the defence as having been received.  I now await the Directions Questionnaire

nosferatu1001

You now keep checking MCOL, every couple days, and when they say the DQ has been sent, you use the N180 form online to file your DQ;)

StuK

Update - I've just received the DQ, which I've completed, signed and emailed to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk, as I did with the defence document.  I've also emailed a copy of the signed and scanned DQ to the Claimant (Britannia Parking - info@britpark.com) and the Claimant's representative (BW Legal - parking@bwlegal.co.uk).