LBC from an ANPR hospital car park

Dolly63

Here is the POC

Coupon-mad

OK so it's DCB Legal & ParkingEye.

You've read the Template Defence thread, so you'll have already seen the special beginning five paragraphs for these specific cases.

If you didn't, read the first post of it again.

Dolly63

Yes, starting with the latest version of first five paragraphs.
Are there any templates for payment machine failures?

Coupon-mad

Dolly63 said:

Yes, starting with the latest version of first five paragraphs.
Are there any templates for payment machine failures?

Why would you talk about something that's not in the POC? This is the whole point.

Dolly63

I have written my defence of POC. Please take a look and advise if there is too much repetition or if I have missed anything.

6. Regarding the POC:

6.1 Paragraph 1 is denied. The defendant is not indebted to the claimant. The defendant was not issued with a parking charge on 4/2/23 or since.

6.2 Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was issued on 4/2/23 (the date of the visit). The POC are incorrect as the PCN was actually issued on 9/2/23.

6.3 Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant attempted to comply with the usual terms and conditions of the contract. Conversely, the Claimant failed to comply with its own terms and conditions by failing to provide an invoice. The Defendant was not given the opportunity to pay for 3hours 23minutes of parking. The Claimant (via its payment machine) stated that no payment was required.

 

7.1The defendant was visiting an elderly relative on end of life protocol and parked in the hospital car park. At the end of the visit the defendant attempted to pay for parking at the nearest payment machine which stated that no payment was necessary. Two attempts were made with the same result. The defendant was shocked when the registered keeper of the car received a PCN through the post.

7.2 The defendant immediately accepted that she was the driver. The defendant followed the appeals process explaining how the payment machine stated that no payment was necessary. The claimant refused to cancel the PCN or make any attempt to verify the defendant’s account.

7.3 The payment machine made it impossible for the defendant to pay for parking and furthermore, twice stated that no payment was required. It is unreasonable for the claimant to subsequently hound the defendant for an unpaid “invoice” which has never been issued.

7.4 After some research, the defendant has become aware that ANPR systems regularly fail, particularly in adverse weather and poor light. The claimant should be more proactive in checking its’ own systems before relentlessly pursuing innocent drivers.

Thanks for helping

Gr1pr

Please change the thread title to something more suitable like 

Parking Eye,  DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"The POC are incorrect as the PCN was actually issued on 9/2/23."

I'd also remove 7.3 and 7.4.

Dolly63

Thank you for your input. Fingers crossed that's the end of it.

Gr1pr

Nope, plenty more steps in this saga, as the newbies thread plus the defence template thread explains

Coupon-mad

Dolly63 said:

Thank you for your input. Fingers crossed that's the end of it.

Eh? That was one small step.

Now it's in you are at step 4 or 5 of the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread, so don't take your eye off the ball (and pleeease don't show us the first letters).