JBL123 vs. Excel Parking

Umkomaas

JBL123 said:

Thanks you, all understood.

Just out of interest, what's the reason behind submitting by email? 

If you use MCOL your Defence is limited to 122 lines and all your document formatting will be chewed up, presenting the Judge with only part of your Defence and what he has in front of him is a wall of unformatted text - not your best start!

JBL123

AOS Filed, thanks.

JBL123

My defence here if anyone could offer and comments:

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant entered XXXXXXXXXXXXX as claimed, the defendant parked at the facility in order to attend the inquest into his father’s recent death at the coroners court immediately over the road. Whilst it provides no defence the defendants mind was on more pressing matters at the time.

The defendant initially purchased a ticket using cash at the pay and display terminal but realised that the cash he had available provided insufficient parking time. As no refund was available from the machine a second purchase was made via the online portal. In both instances the defendant keyed in an incorrect vehicle registration mark. The defendant had recently applied a cherished number plate to his vehicle and used the first half of the new plate and the second half of the old plate.

During the appeal process the minor typing error became apparent and the claimant refused to deal with the error appropriately at the first stage appeal in line with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (BPA CoP) (Version 8 – January 2020) – Section 17. Especially as it was proven the defendant had paid for parking (twice), had attempted to enter the VRM and were a legitimate user of the car park.

It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the claimant will have incurred charges (including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs) and therefore the defendant offered a sum of £20 in line with the BPA CoP but the claimant refused the offer.

Coupon-mad

All paragraphs need a number.

JBL123

Coupon-mad said:

All paragraphs need a number.

Understood thanks, will update.

JBL123

Anybody else have any further comments or is it good to go do you think? 

Le_Kirk

Your paragraph starting "During the appeal...." it sounds like the refusal to deal is in line with the BPA CoP.  Also you should remove the full stop after Section 17" and replace it with a comma and lower case "e" for "Especially".

JBL123

Defence submitted, N180 form received 

Le_Kirk

Is it the N180 from CCBC or a completed one from the claimant?

Grizebeck

Le_Kirk said:

Is it the N180 from CCBC or a completed one from the claimant?

When a defence to a claim is logged to a vcs/excel (directly issued only,no elms /dcb legal) claim they have their ccbc account set to automatically issue the N180 form on receipt of the defence. So you will always get the court issued n180 form within 2 or 3 days of a defence being logged.