PCN - BUT I paid at the machine! Full Reg No wasn't input - Machine at fault!

PCN_Abused

Hi,

You are not alone. I am in the same situation. Britannia and BW Legal, with County Court notice issue date of 25 of Nov.

In my case ticket got issued with 4 digits but not registered the last 3. 
I understand from reading the forum and forms until 14th of December to acknowledge.

Parking is in Essex, but Court is 2h away, is it worth I contest the jurisdiction or the defense can de done remotely?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Almost all hearings in private parking cases are conducted remotely - either by phone or video link. 

Contesting 'jurisdiction' is not so much about where the hearing will be held, more about the country under whose laws you are being pursued, eg if the court was in Scotland and the parking event was in England, you being pursued under Scottish law. 

Le_Kirk

PCN_Abused said:

Hi,

You are not alone. I am in the same situation. Britannia and BW Legal, with County Court notice issue date of 25 of Nov.

In my case ticket got issued with 4 digits but not registered the last 3. 
I understand from reading the forum and forms until 14th of December to acknowledge.

Parking is in Essex, but Court is 2h away, is it worth I contest the jurisdiction or the defense  defence can de done remotely?

Thanks

Not sure what stage you are at but when you receive a DQ (N180) form, you choose your own local court, all as outlined in the NEWBIE sticky.  If you want any more help please start your own thread/discussion.  Poor forum etiquette to hijack someone else's thread.

Coupon-mad

Parking is in Essex, but Court is 2h away, is it worth I contest the jurisdiction or the defense can de done remotely?

No. 

And court is not 2hours away, it's not Northampton.  Please start a new thread for bespoke help.

D_P_Dance

If ypu think that a PDT machine was faulty complain to Trading Stamndards.

AnxiousM

@KeithP

I thought I had better get this done today, please would you be kind enough to take a look at the draft defence, I am unsure how to put things in words, or if this should be paragraphed?  Thank you in advance Keith, your help is very much appreciated.

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant admits to being the driver on *******

3.      The defendant entered the car park in **** on ****.  No clear signs were observed regarding inputting the vehicle registration number on the ticket machine.  The defendants’ intentions on that day were to pay for parking in this car park, and this was done.

The defendant checked the price tariff, and parking for the time required was eighty pence.  The defendant inserted a one-pound coin into the machine and pressed the green button, only to realise at that point that the LCD display on the ticket machine ‘flashed’ up a request for the vehicle registration number, which was unexpected.  

The defendant began to enter the vehicle registration number, after the first two letters were input on the lcd display, the machine produced a ticket.  There were no other options offered to confirm the vehicle registration number, nor any option to “continue with the purchase” was given on the lcd display.  

The defendant believed that a valid ticket had been purchased, as the machine had printed out the ticket, of which was displayed in the vehicle windscreen and the length of stay was within the permitted time displayed on the ticket. 

4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

Johnersh

Para 1 is  incoherent. If you are in the process of paying for your parking you are:

1. Aware that there are terms that require payment to be made;
2. Aware that parking was offered, which you accepted and paid for (consideration) - the constituent elements of contract law.


The defence is presumably, compliance with or substantial compliance with the contract. If signs didn't require registration entry, but the machine did, then registration entry likely isn't a contractual term.

Based on what you say, the parking company has been paid in accordance with the contract, such that this is a scenario in which "no loss" actually is an argument.  If this is an ANPR car park they can easily marry up the payment with the cars and partial registration from the machine.

The court could be directed to the consultation (where ppcs would not be allowed to charge for this) or similar codes of conduct where that is limited to an admin fee to manually check.

Finally dont forget that the defence can address both the entitlement to claim the sum, but also the entitlement to claim enhanced amounts and interest. 

AnxiousM

Johnersh said:

Para 1 is  incoherent. If you are in the process of paying for your parking you are:

1. Aware that there are terms that require payment to be made;
2. Aware that parking was offered, which you accepted and paid for (consideration) - the constituent elements of contract law.


The defence is presumably, compliance with or substantial compliance with the contract. If signs didn't require registration entry, but the machine did, then registration entry likely isn't a contractual term.

Based on what you say, the parking company has been paid in accordance with the contract, such that this is a scenario in which "no loss" actually is an argument.  If this is an ANPR car park they can easily marry up the payment with the cars and partial registration from the machine.

The court could be directed to the consultation (where ppcs would not be allowed to charge for this) or similar codes of conduct where that is limited to an admin fee to manually check.

Finally dont forget that the defence can address both the entitlement to claim the sum, but also the entitlement to claim enhanced amounts and interest. 

Thank you.

Should I remove this part then?

"It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location"

I am so confused and upset, I have no idea what I should or shouldn't say and getting in a bit of a state as I know I need to get this sent off soon.

Le_Kirk

Johnersh said:

Para 1 is  incoherent. If you are in the process of paying for your parking you are:

That is from the standard defence template and has been used since February 2020.  Are you saying it is wrong or has the OP copied it incorrectly?

Coupon-mad

I can see how denying *any* contract makes little sense in a case where you agreed to pay a parking fee.