Wrong registration at ANPR pay and display

KeithP

ADorreen said:

Thanks, but I'm not seeking debt advice and I have no interest in delaying this - I want this out of the way so that I can escape the stress and enjoy life.

OK, then do nothing and wait for the County Court Claim Form to drop through your letterbox.
When you get that Claim Form, post the Issue Date here and more guidance will be offered.
The second post of the NEWBIES thread also explains how to deal with that Claim Form.

Coupon-mad

Or respond robustly to the LBC like you see when you search the forum for:

Dear Sirs parking Cease desist Arkell

Le_Kirk

ADorreen said:

As far as I can see from this forum they will push this to the wire, by which time I will go to court and seek costs as high as possible.  So I need to be properly prepared and confident about something I have never done in my life.

Seeking costs after a (successful) court hearing is likely to net you £95 plus parking or travel costs all proven by wage/salary slip and receipts.  Asking for higher means you have to prove the claimant acted unreasonably.  A high bar to cross!
Most posters here have never done this before, in fact some of the regulars (not all) have never had a PCN or made a small claims court appearance but as @KeithP writes, will support you in whatever you decide to do.

ADorreen

I have drafted a response to the Letter of Claim.  Any comments?

I note that you are ignoring all my previous responses and requests for your evidence and, so far at least, are failing to follow the intention of the pre-action protocol, which states:

This Protocol’s aims are to – 

(a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute; 

(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings,

Section 5 requires you to respond with the requested information within 30 days, up to now you have not done so.  There is no suggestion that you should wait until the Letter of Claim before properly engaging with the creditor.  Indeed your client clearly stated that you will provide the data that I had requested from them.  You did not do so.

Your lack of cooperation is regrettable as provision of your evidence could have resolved this dispute earlier.  It would seem that you choose to harass me with repeated demands for money, by phone, email and letter, rather than resolve the dispute.

I also note that you operate an extremely difficult internet wall to increase the difficulty of communicating, and that your response to my complaint about this problem simply tells me to repeat the experience.

This letter is accompanied by the reply form and, to be clear yet again: I dispute the debt.

I expect the following information:

1 Records of vehicle registrations collected by ANPR in and out of the xx car park for the period xx.

2 Records of vehicle registrations from all the ticket payment machines for the period xx.

3 CCTV coverage of the payment machines for the period xx

4 Copies of all evidence that you have regarding this case

These can be in machine readable files (eg comma delimited or other Excel compatible format) if that is more convenient for you.

Coupon-mad

I don't see that as a robust response.

Did you read the ones I wrote that come up when you do the search I suggested?

They won't send you any of those things because the solicitor holds NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.  Only the PPC has some of that info and they won't show you other people's VRMs.

There is no CCTV.

We also clearly tell people not to attach or use the Reply Forms.

ADorreen

Yes I did search as suggested and the ones I found did not seem to be relevant to this case, I couldn't see how to adapt them.
I have done the SAR and requested machine records and the PPC refused to supply, and said the solicitor would respond.  As for other people's VRMs - with a keying error it is not clear whether unmatched VRM's are other peoples or ours?  So how do we get that information?  Until the unmatched VRMs are revealed neither side has any evidence?
You say the solicitor holds no evidence - surely at some point there has to be evidence of the alleged non-payment, so how do we get it?

There was CCTV evidence of the driver paying at the machine.   I want to make the point to the court that there was CCTV evidence that would indicate payment was made.  It was, of course, destroyed the day before the NTK.  i.e. everything is stacked against us proving our innocence.

The reply form is part of the pre-action protocol and I'm not clear why you advise against that - I'm only going to tick the box that says the claim is disputed and put in the name/address they already have.  Really I'm just trying to show the court that we are trying hard to resolve the dispute, and follow the PAP, and they are doing their best to harass us and bring it to court.

I agree that the draft doesn't sound robust - but then I don't think we are in a very robust position at present.  Any further pointers would be gratefully received...

Coupon-mad

You are in a very robust position.

You say the solicitor holds no evidence - surely at some point there has to be evidence of the alleged non-payment, so how do we get it?

The solicitor holds nothing, and has looked at nothing.  Sadly you are a VRM & PCN number on a list with a name & address attached and that's all any roboclaim 'aggressive bully' firm needs to bung in an automated court claim.

However you are right that you can ask for documents as part of your rights under the PAP.

There was CCTV evidence of the driver paying at the machine.   I want to make the point to the court that there was CCTV evidence that would indicate payment was made.

I am surprised. But presumably not the parking firm's CCTV because they only have ANPR, a few crappy signs and payment machines on site.

Write much more angrily - in the style of the ones you saw in your search results - and require evidence from their client's database of the close-match VRM input that accompanied your payment of £x.xx.

Demand to know why their client is pursuing this case, given they know there is no loss, nor any legitimate interest to save their charge from being 'punishment for a typo' which is unenforceable twaddle and is specifically banned by the DLUHC in the new statutory Code of Practice.  Indeed it's already illegal because to place an unbalanced burden on a consumer then try to rip them off falls foul of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and also the Beavis case, where the Supreme Court held:

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of ... {the parking firm}... in the enforcement of the primary obligation ... {there can be} ... no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter."

ADorreen

I'm going down a lot of rabbit holes here maybe, but I searched out the Beavis case your refer to and found Parking Eye v Beavis: Law on Parking Penalties | Lawble.   It seems they judged that the penalty in that case WAS reasonable and NOT simply punishing the defaulter.  So I don't see that the quote you suggest is necessarily applicable? It may be, but not obviously so? 
I'd really like to find a case that ruled that keying error was not enforceable but my searching has proved time consuming and unproductive. Or perhaps an example where a mis-keyed VRN (BWL) case was dropped for that reason.

Coupon-mad

The quote is 100% applicable.  And it is THE top authority. You can stop looking for others.

The Supreme Court said that a charge for breach is potentially an unenforceable penalty.  In parking cases the penalty rule IS engaged.  However, in the Beavis case (overstay in a '2 hrs free' retail park) they were able to show that there was an overriding 'legitimate interest' in a high £85 deterrent.  That compelling interest was in encouraging turnover of spaces, every 2 hours.

The Supreme Court said the intention could not be merely to punish. In your case, it is.

ADorreen

Thanks for you help.  I have added this before the draft response I posted earlier:

Let me be quite clear:

·       I will not pay a penny more

·       If you continue on to a legal case then you will lose

·       I will claim costs

·       I will report the outcome on various public fora

Why are you pursuing this case?  You know there is no loss nor any legitimate interest.  You know that your client must avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors  - this is specifically banned by the DLUHC in the statutory Code of Practice.  Indeed it's already illegal because to place an unbalanced burden on a consumer and then try to rip them off falls foul of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

You must be aware of the Beavis case, where the Supreme Court held:

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of ... {the parking firm}... in the enforcement of the primary obligation ... {there can be} ... no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter."

 I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"

You should confirm in writing that you are withdrawing the PCN and will not pursue any further action.

 

If you do not comply then continue reading….