Disputing a ticket - frustration of contract?

Vanadesse

Jenni_D said:

OK. To be clear, I'm saying that your first defence point is that the contravention did not occur, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that a PCN dated 3rd August was issued to the Defendant. Short and sweet, doesn't need to be embellished really.

Your subsequent defence points address whether the Claimant meant a PCN date of 8th March.  

Yes that’s how I had interpreted what you said and what I’ve done. Basically a point saying no contravention occurred on that date, no PCN, LBC. Then followed on saying whilst I had been on site on the corrected date, no liability because X, Y, Z. 

Johnersh

It's for the o/p to decide what to do and there is an issue here because no-one on here has seen all of the letters apart from him/her.

My current view (additional info might modify this and, of course, tactics are for the defendant and him/her alone) is that where C is on notice/you have requested clarification of the precise date and they have pressed ahead with the date they have, then that is all that needs responding to.

A pleading in the alternative here suggests the defendant is well aware of the "correct" date.  My point is that the o/p is not duty bound to flag error and is only required to respond. There are several ways to have avoided this:

1. For C to check their docs
2. For C to liaise with the parking attendant/check the ANPR computer (as applicable)
3. For C to address the query pre action
4. For C to write in days and months rather than numerical terms (or both)

We know ppcs can issue tickets every 24hr period and are not required in law to issue windscreen tickets, so why assume this is a definite transposition of dates at all? 

Jenni_D

That's why I asked IF the OP should make an in the alternative plea.  

Johnersh

Jenni_D said:

That's why I asked IF the OP should make an in the alternative plea.  

Deffo worth considering. I've explained my rationale, but all views welcome. It's not my decision to make and I can't advise. 

Vanadesse

Johnersh said:

It's for the o/p to decide what to do and there is an issue here because no-one on here has seen all of the letters apart from him/her.

My current view (additional info might modify this and, of course, tactics are for the defendant and him/her alone) is that where C is on notice/you have requested clarification of the precise date and they have pressed ahead with the date they have, then that is all that needs responding to.

A pleading in the alternative here suggests the defendant is well aware of the "correct" date.  My point is that the o/p is not duty bound to flag error and is only required to respond. There are several ways to have avoided this:

1. For C to check their docs
2. For C to liaise with the parking attendant/check the ANPR computer (as applicable)
3. For C to address the query pre action
4. For C to write in days and months rather than numerical terms (or both)

We know ppcs can issue tickets every 24hr period and are not required in law to issue windscreen tickets, so why assume this is a definite transposition of dates at all? 

It is definitely an incorrect formatting of the date because they used it in the LBC, with the PCN reference the same as the initial PCN that I received. I have also never otherwise been on that car park other than that day. I do think there is likely good cause for just addressing the fact that no contravention occured on that date and definitely understand your view. The worrier in me though is concerned that if I didn't address the alternative date and for some reason the case did still continue, I couldn't rely on any further points because I didn't make them in the original defence. I'm a bit too much of a 'what if?' person to limit myself, just in case!

Vanadesse

A quick question, I've read what feels like a million threads but can't seem to find an answer to this. I know that it's worth waiting the 5 days to do the AoS (which I've now done) but I am wondering whether I should submit my defence as soon as it is ready or whether there is benefit until waiting until closer towards the end of the 28 days?

Redx

The first rule to get maximum time is wait 5 days after the issue date before doing the AOS online , in order to get 33 days to the 4pm deadline that KeithP says daily in court claim threads on here

The ultimate rule is , do not miss the deadline !

So anytime in between is fine and there is no advantage in delaying submission to the ccbcaq email address

So whenever you are sure that your Defence is good to go , eMail it , preferably between 9 and 4 on a weekday

Vanadesse

Redx said:

The first rule to get maximum time is wait 5 days after the issue date before doing the AOS online , in order to get 33 days to the 4pm deadline that KeithP says daily in court claim threads on here

The ultimate rule is , do not miss the deadline !

So anytime in between is fine and there is no advantage in delaying submission to the ccbcaq email address

So whenever you are sure that your Defence is good to go , eMail it , preferably between 9 and 4 on a weekday

I thought that was the case but just wanted to make sure - thank you!

Jenni_D

When it comes to Witness Statement stage (assuming it goes that far) then it is suggested to delay as long as possible before filing/serving your own WS, in case the PPC files/serves theirs first thus allowing you the opportunity to address their points in your own WS.

Vanadesse

Jenni_D said:

When it comes to Witness Statement stage (assuming it goes that far) then it is suggested to delay as long as possible before filing/serving your own WS, in case the PPC files/serves theirs first thus allowing you the opportunity to address their points in your own WS.

Yes that makes sense. I was wondering about something along those lines but didn’t think it would make a difference to the defence so thanks for clarifying.