Adjourned Hearing - a Skeleton Argument Confined to 3 Issues of Law required

Johnersh

Once the o/p knows what their case is, we can assist with relevant cases. Otherwise it's just a guess. 

Snakes_Belly

Johnersh said:

Once the o/p knows what their case is, we can assist with relevant cases. Otherwise it's just a guess. 

The three issues?  Need to drill down on these then.  

Johnersh

Sounds as though frustration of contract or, perhaps more likely, impossibility, could be argued, but the defence as it stands is unclear.

D was offered parking and accepted by parking. Consideration was paid for that benefit - the elements of a basic contract being formed.

But, where (if it was a contractual requirement to enter the reg) and the app malfunctioned -  circumstances - as it is operated by a third party, so as to prevented a registration being given/recorded, the contract terms were then impossible to meet. 

The terms of parking were either impossible from the outset (payment having already been taken and D committed, he couldn't very well use another machine and cash) or frustrated as the intent the parties had to comply was prevented by the supervening event, with no retrospective ability to provide a reg once payment taken. 

It could be argued that C cannot claim breach for that and where there was substantial compliance. The ANPR is merely a device to save manual checks. The malfunction is not a reason for D to then pay twice. One might argue its more proportionate for the C to manually check and to resolve this pre-action than simply to litigate.

D can prove payment. Can C prove the app was working at all times? Have they contacted the provider for an error log? Details of software updates? Etc or are they simply assuming error by the Defendant? 

brianposter

Why waste the judges time ?

Phone bill showing relevant call.

Bank statement showing £1.70 charge.

No case to answer.

Johnersh

Back to the Defence... What does it say? 

Snakes_Belly

Would the payments company be classed as an agent? 

Snakes_Belly

Johnersh said:

Back to the Defence... What does it say? 

OP needs to post this.  

buckminster

Johnersh said:

D can prove payment. Can C prove the app was working at all times? Have they contacted the provider for an error log? Details of software updates? Etc or are they simply assuming error by the Defendant? 

thanks @Johnersh, the app was working but wasn't set up properly to accept registration details if you had previously registered with 2 previous different car registrations; once they had offered me the two registration numbers there was no follow on advice or link to a helpline. i assumed because they had accepted my payment i at least had proof of purchase, and didn't want to pay for a second ticket just in case the phone app hadn't worked - i couldn't in any case because i didn't have any change. 
they made reference.

excel did make reference to the pay by phone system when i initially appealed, but the WS they provided made no reference to it even though i had highlighted the issue in my defence, extract of correspondence below:

Johnersh

@Snakes_Belly technically yes, a payment agent.

There is the challebge for broken machine cases that an o/p is not restricted to using one machine - save that here the transaction completed. D should not have to pay twice and, further, if it's a requirement to enter a reg, the software should not in any event process a payment without one. 

buckminster

thanks @Snakes_Belly - they have since changed the pay by phone system such that you register before payment