PCN. Premier Park, Nottingham Street Car Park, Melton Mowbray - Advice, Please

Grizebeck

Just wait till you get a court claim...

Falcon269

Grizebeck said:

Just wait till you get a court claim...

That remains my intention.  What I'm asking for is advice on what to do at that point. 

I don't mind fighting on but I would prefer to go into court with the handle of my sword in my hand, not the blade.

Grizebeck

You wont be doing that
Deal with your defence if/when you get  a claim form

Trainerman

I have not read back on this, so could have it wrong but if it is ANPR controlled, and the parking session started when you purchased the ticket and then at the end were three minutes over the 'grace period', then that included time to leave.

In other words, you were not parked for that three minutes, you were leaving. Do you recall any holdups??  Waiting in a queue to leave??

Falcon269

No hold-ups, to be honest.  It's a small site and from parking slot to ANPR camera was no more than 50 meters.  Came back to the car, got in, drove away - although I suppose I could say that it took a few minutes to shed coats, gloves and shopping bags before starting the engine?

I don't know but would imagine the 10-mins grace period includes the time taken to actually exit the car park or else it would throw another imponderable into the equation.

Falcon269

Grizebeck said:

You wont be doing that
Deal with your defence if/when you get  a claim form

I prefer to get ahead of things and to have the basis of my defence clear in anticipation of this going to court. 

At the moment I'm not seeing what that should be, hence the questions and follow-ups here.

Grizebeck

But you have weeks to write your defence on receipt of the claim form

Coupon-mad

There are several defence angles:

- the ANPR clock is not synchronised with the pay & display machine clock (they never are) and you assert that you left within ten minutes and the ''out' camera timer was 'out (deliberately or negligently);

- whilst the primary contract to pay the small fee to park was prominently displayed with a large font tariff list, the secondary contract was not.  If it was there at all it was in minuscule text and £100 was not displayed in the same large font as the tariff list. There was no warning at all on or at the machine (the point of sale). There was no knowledge nor acceptance of a secondary contract;

- in any event, the £170 supposedly 'agreed' sum now claimed bears no relation to the £1 fee per hour.  It is disproportionate snd unconscionable and the Beavis case (which featured very clear signage and a free car park) is distinguished.

Falcon269

We seem to be going in circles here.

I realize that I should have plenty of time to actually draft the defence. I want to know in advance what that draft should contain so that I can gather my thoughts and evidence to that end.  I travel from home a great deal and Sod's Law says I will be away when the court paperwork arrives, so my 'flash to bang' time could be much reduced. 

I believed at the time of putting my 50p in the parking machine that I had contracted for 2.5 hours of parking, which I extrapolated from the sign saying one hour of parking after 5pm would cost 20p.  That appears not to be so, hence the PCN.  That is the crux of this matter and hence the one I would think to put forward as my defence - ambiguous/misleading signage.  I'm asking if that's a feasible defence. 

At the moment, Coupon Mad seems to favour the consideration period route but I'm not sure that would fly for the reasons I stated.  Trainerman has come up with another possible contribution - much appreciated - which I could fold into the defence as well.

Like the old military adage says, "time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted".

Trainerman

I would suggest then that you actually read through the template defence. You will see that it covers all the bases anyway, and it becomes a case of what, for you, are the best points to put into paras 2 and 3 (and possibly more).

Sounds like your main points are poor signage, both in not being clear as to tariff and not clearly forming a secondary contract.and then also, the claimant being put to strict proof that the clocks are correctly synchronised and you were really there for the duration stated.