Walton Wilkins Court Claim

Jenni_D

Why not send a letter/email first to make such an offer? (Head the correspondence Without Prejudice Save As To Costs). That way you'd know their position prior to sending any payment in any form.

If you want you could offer to pay the parking fee plus, say, £10 towards their admin costs as a goodwill gesture, and they drop their claim (a drop-hands offer). If this proceeds to a hearing and you win then you could produce that correspondence when costs are being assessed, showing that you acted reasonably yet the claimant proceeded with a claim they had little chance of winning.

Snakes_Belly

95Rollers said:

@Teemo said:

It was the NTK they had sent to me however it was sent to my previous address. Could I say that because of this I did not have a chance to appeal? 

Yes you could mention that. What was the timescale between your address changing after the alleged contravention?  

Appealing would of been a waste of time anyway.  But you couldn't even appeal anyway if you hadn't received it. Appeals aren't independent nor legally binding on the motorists. Many Appeals are found in the Parking firms favour, but the motorist wins in court because most judges can see their scam for what it is! 

You have hit the nail oh the head regarding the signs!

This PPL case made National Press. The lady Defendant (Sarah Teng) commented on PPL's poor signage and predatory tactics!  Probably worth drawing references to this at WS.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/16075144/mum-wins-court-battle-sneaky-parking-firm/amp/

You could use this example in your WS. In a hearing the Claimant's rep may object but stand your ground. 

This operator is a blight on Birmingham and is not helping recovery from the pandemic as many of the tickets are issued to people using restaurants and the theatre in Birmingham who have lost revenue as a result of the pandemic.  

"Sarah, who also runs a Chinese community group in the city, said: "As far as I know, five of us since lockdown have won their case."

Your PCN and Jimsnaps were both issued on a car park in the Chinese quarter. Theatre goers park there also as the Hippodrome is nearby.

Teemo

I had to drop my mom off to Birmingham New Street Station yesterday morning and since i was in the area i thought i would stop by the car park and take another photo from a driver's perspective upon entering the car park.

The photo is quite shocking as upon entering the car park there is no way you can expect for someone to read the sign from that height with the text being so small, not to mention it being bent around the pole. (Photo below.)

Regarding offering to send payment for the tariff, who would i contact regarding this? DCB Legal? I have tried to search online to see if there is an address for the HM Car Park however it just comes under PPL.
The parking tariff would be sent via a postal order.

Teemo

Please find my defence below.
I'm not sure if i should mention the signs, etc in the defence or leave it for my WS?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant entered the car park and parked correctly in the bay. The defendant went over to the payment machine to purchase a ticket for one hour. The defendant proceeded to put coins in the payment machine however the machine did not accept the £1 coins. The £1 coins were being rejected and not registering with the payment machine. The defendant then left the car park to find a shop that was open to get more change for the payment machine. The defendant returned to the car park a few minutes later to find the parking officer beside the defendant’s car. After explaining to the parking officer what had happened, the parking officer proceeded to print the PCN and stick it on the defendant’s car.

Coupon-mad

Don't call the predatory ticketer an officer.  Private parking firms haven't earned that level of respect in recent years!

I would state that there were no prominent signs alerting people that they had zero time to get change, nor where the boundary of 'the site' was.  These are onerous terms and must be conspicuous (red hand rule applies).  The Defendant believed it was reasonable to use an expected industry standard consideration or 'grace' period to get change for the machine. It is absurd to suggest that an average circumspect person would have 'agreed' to pay £100 as a punishment for getting the change needed by the machine.  The elements of a contract were not met.  There was no meeting of minds.  No fair grace period nor regard to fairness was applied; the ticketer could have stopped what they were doing and acknowledged the Defendant's position and good faith.

Teemo

Please find amended defence.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant entered the car park and parked correctly in the bay. The Defendant went over to the payment machine to purchase a ticket for one hour. The Defendant proceeded to put coins in the payment machine however the machine did not accept the £1 coins. The £1 coins were being rejected and not registering with the payment machine. The Defendant then left the car park to find a shop that was open to get more change for the payment machine. The Defendant returned to the car park a few minutes later to find the parking attendant beside the defendant’s car. After explaining to the parking attendant what had happened, the parking officer proceeded to print the PCN and stick it on the Defendant’s car.

4. There were no prominent signs alerting people that they had zero time to get change, nor where the boundary of 'the site' was.  These are onerous terms and must be conspicuous. The Defendant believed it was reasonable to use an expected industry standard consideration or 'grace' period to get change for the machine. It is absurd to suggest that an average circumspect person would have 'agreed' to pay £100 as a punishment for getting the change needed by the machine.  The elements of a contract were not met.  There was no meeting of minds.  No fair grace period nor regard to fairness was applied; the parking attendant could have stopped what they were doing and acknowledged the Defendant's position and good faith.

Fruitcake

The parking weasel is still not an officer. That term implies an element of authority that this unregulated industry does not have or deserve.

As for the parking operative hearing what you had to say but still putting a ticket on the car, parking companies are supposed to mitigate their loss before issuing a charge and going down the litigation route.

Teemo

Sorry i seem to have missed the last parking officer whilst amending my statement, wish i could put parking weasel 

Please find below amended defence.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant entered the car park and parked correctly in the bay. The Defendant went over to the payment machine to purchase a ticket for one hour. The Defendant proceeded to put coins in the payment machine however the machine did not accept the £1 coins. The £1 coins were being rejected and not registering with the payment machine. The Defendant then left the car park to find a shop that was open to get more change for the payment machine. The Defendant returned to the car park a few minutes later to find the parking attendant beside the defendant’s car. After explaining to the parking attendant what had happened, the parking attendant proceeded to print the PCN and stick it on the Defendant’s car.

4. There were no prominent signs alerting people that they had zero time to get change, nor where the boundary of 'the site' was.  These are onerous terms and must be conspicuous. The Defendant believed it was reasonable to use an expected industry standard consideration or 'grace' period to get change for the machine. It is absurd to suggest that an average circumspect person would have 'agreed' to pay £100 as a punishment for getting the change needed by the machine.  The elements of a contract were not met.  There was no meeting of minds.  No fair grace period nor regard to fairness was applied; the parking attendant could have stopped what they were doing and acknowledged the Defendant's position and good faith. Parking companies are supposed to mitigate their loss before issuing a charge and going down the litigation route however the parking attendant still proceeded with issuing the PCN despite knowing the Defendant’s circumstances.

Coupon-mad

Yep!

That'll do for this stage, and as ever, new posters reading that draft defence must take into account it is only a very small section, that slots into the longer template defence, which covers all the other standard points.

Teemo

Thank you I will add that to the rest of the defence and adjust the numbers since I have added an extra paragraph. 

Should I submit the defence now or wait closer to the deadline date?