Parkingeye Court Defence on unfair PCN, 11 minutes for £100

1505grandad

"7. When I opened the app and selected the car park, the app did not let me process the payment, giving an error message “Payment is not accepted at this time”. After several minutes of checking the car park number on the app and trying again and again to make the payment, I took a screen shot of the error, collected my order and decided to leave the car park. (Exhibit xx-03)"

Just wondering how the above relates to:-

"Para 24 etc. 

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty keypad (at a site where the system has already recorded the correct VRM via ANPR, thus the system is capable of presenting the driver with the full VRM as soon as he or she starts to type) is unfairly weighted against consumers."

You also conclude with the Chan case which is not mentioned anywhere in the WS.

Spectre777

1505grandad said:

"7. When I opened the app and selected the car park, the app did not let me process the payment, giving an error message “Payment is not accepted at this time”. After several minutes of checking the car park number on the app and trying again and again to make the payment, I took a screen shot of the error, collected my order and decided to leave the car park. (Exhibit xx-03)"

Just wondering how the above relates to:-

"Para 24 etc. 

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty keypad (at a site where the system has already recorded the correct VRM via ANPR, thus the system is capable of presenting the driver with the full VRM as soon as he or she starts to type) is unfairly weighted against consumers."

You also conclude with the Chan case which is not mentioned anywhere in the WS.

thank you, will let you guys know how it goes

Coupon-mad

But have you now found the wording to add about the CEL v Chan appeal?

Spectre777

Coupon-mad said:

But have you now found the wording to add about the CEL v Chan appeal?

I removed it form the conclusion as I was running out of time and was not too sure if it was suitable

UncleThomasCobley

Is PE litigating themselves or are they being represented by someone like DCB Legal? If the latter and you did not include the CEL v Chan argument and transcript, you have thrown away your golden ticket.

Coupon-mad

They are litigating themselves, I just read back on the initial posts from the Spring. So I think the OP has done the right thing and this WS bundle that they put in, is strong enough:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d_sLNPCbdhahxIIIY40W-XTZriJQtuHz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102002230596635490530&rtpof=true&sd=true

Spectre777

Yes, apparently I will be against this lad  
https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-langley-a99aa6180/?originalSubdomain=uk

Spectre777

Also, is there anything that I might mention in court based on CEL v Chan even though it was not included in the WS? Surely the judge will know the law and the previous outcomes on this case

Coupon-mad

No it's unreported and not case law. Judges can't know every case.  It's just a recent appeal case and it's not really applicable to a claim filed directly by ParkingEye because their POC do state the breach.

I assume they added £20 on top of the £100 parking charge, even though the sign only says £100?  That's something a Judge will listen to and your WS covers the inflated claim point (as does one of your Exhibits).

I doubt you'll be up against a kid young enough to be my son!  I would be surprised if that bright young thing actually does court hearings, especially not if it's an in-person hearing.

ParkingEye use LPC Law to send a (probably badly-briefed that morning) third party legal rep to hearings.  Never their own staff.

Spectre777

Coupon-mad said:

No it's unreported and not case law. Judges can't know every case.  It's just a recent appeal case and it's not really applicable to a claim filed directly by ParkingEye because their POC do state the breach.

I assume they added £20 on top of the £100 parking charge, even though the sign only says £100?  That's something a Judge will listen to and your WS covers the inflated claim point (as does one of your Exhibits).

I doubt you'll be up against a kid young enough to be my son!  I would be surprised if that bright young thing actually does court hearings, especially not if it's an in-person hearing.

ParkingEye use LPC Law to send a (probably badly-briefed that morning) third party legal rep to hearings.  Never their own staff.

Hi! I have great news: I received a notice of discontinuance from Parkingeye in which they discontinue all of this claim (see link attached). Thank you for everyone who helped me write the defence and WS-could not have done it without you! Also, I have learned so much during this experience. 
From here-can I still ask the Judge to claim for the hours spend  writing all these? 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bBE81t8kpHmsadGydGqQzoSv7qjsRshA/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bBV6vffNHyFmyvuO-v4VFWyBOYeVXets/view?usp=sharing