Excel parking fine defence stage

Coupon-mad

Ok - easy to defend though and well worth you reading all the other ones by searching the forum.  Loads of defences already written and ahead of you in the game.  Bookmark and review them regularly to see them win.

Judjules

Hi Thanks for all the help so far. I've copied the defence off the site and would appreciate some feedback on my edit  Thank you

2.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".

3. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued and why, making it difficult to respond. Even when the Defendant appealed this charge months ago, the dispute was rejected out of hand as "appealed too late" and there was no explanation of why the Claimant was (incorrectly) suggesting that no payment was made.

4. The POC fail to properly identify the location or town; merely a street name which is not private land. It is denied that the vehicle was parked in 'the Copeland Street' (public highway). Further, the POC fail to mention any quantum at all, let alone break it down into heads of cost. The claim is for £170 which is far higher than the maximum (industry capped) sum for a parking charge and is wholly disproportionate. It is denied that this Claimant is entitled to the unquantified 'parking charge, contractual costs and interest' that the POC vaguely mentions at the end, nor any sum at all.

5. The VRM in the POC is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver but not the owner. The Defendant was visiting a nearby location to Copeland street to quote for some work. On arriving at the car park, the Defendant was greeted by the prospective customer in order to direct the defendant to the premises which made the defendant feel hurried. The defendant suffers from inattentive ADHD which causes the defendant to get easily distracted and make careless mistakes.

6. The Defendant purchased a ticket for £2.00 using cash at the pay and display machine this covered 2 hours parking. The machine asked for the VRM, the VRM was entered in a hurried state but at no point was the defendant made aware that it was incorrect or that the VRM did not match any vehicle tracked by the ANPR camera.

7. It is denied that the vehicle was parked without purchasing a valid pay & display ticket. The sum paid by the Defendant (in cash) covered the duration of parking with one hour unused. The ticket will be submitted in due course as evidence of payment. Any breach is denied

1505grandad

Just checking  -  the claim is definitely in your name not your wife's?

Judjules

Yes it is 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove the bit about you making a mistake AND the fact you were there for work (because that cancels out the CRA 2015).

So how about this (1-4 are unchanged):

5.  The VRM in the POC is the Defendant's wife's vehicle and it is common ground that he was driving, and that he paid for the full parking time. The Defendant purchased a ticket for £2.00 using cash at the pay and display machine and this covered 2 hours parking.  An unexpected PCN arrived out of the blue, weeks later. In good faith, the Defendant 'appealed' as the driver but this was rejected out of hand by the farce that is the self-serving 'IAS' which is considered an embarrassment to the parking industry and rejects 95% of consumer disputes.  The two (Trade Body provided) so-called appeals services compete in a 'race to the bottom' and this is considered by Ministers to be a major part of the problem.  The IAS is due to be replaced by the Government with a proper appeals service ADR this year.

6.  This Claimant is intent on pursuing and penalising the Defendant for what they later said was a 'keying error' as far as the Defendant can ascertain. This particularly disingenuous aspect of rogue conduct by the parking industry is also coming to an end this year, and the Claimant has known this since February 2022.  PCNs must be cancelled in all cases where 'keying errors' are identified because to place the burden on consumers is unfair, given that ANPR systems know which cars are on site, software exists that can cross check VRMs against payments and because keying errors are very often caused by old payment machines with faded or sticky keypads.  Even if a keying error is the consumer's "fault", the DLUHC has declared that PCNs for typos are unacceptable.

7.  It is denied that the vehicle was parked without purchasing a valid pay & display ticket. The sum paid by the Defendant (in cash) covered the duration of parking with one hour unused. The ticket - which the Claimant has seen already in 2023 and knows relates to this vehicle - will be submitted in due course, as evidence of payment. Any breach, damages or loss is denied and the ongoing pursuit of this claim (despite the knowledge that the Claimant has had for months about the circumstances) is in fact, a case of disability discrimination.

8.  The Claimant is well aware of all the circumstances, including the fact that parking was paid for and that the Defendant has ADHD.  Despite their continued pursuit now being an actionable breach of the Equality Act 2010 (direct discrimination) they have made no 'reasonable adjustments' to match the payment as soon as it was flagged by the Defendant, in order to accommodate his needs arising from his condition (ADHD). Instead they have proceeded with the usual 'steamroller' in the form of a meritless roboclaim.  This bears all the hallmarks of harassment of a disabled person, due to something that directly occurred as a result of his protected characteristics (Equality Act definitions apply).  Indeed it looks deliberate, in the hope that a Defendant with ADHD might not defend a court claim well, or in time.

9.  {The rest of the Template Defence paragraph 4 onwards goes here, fully re-numbered}.

Judjules

Fantastic many thanks

Judjules

A quick update sent the defence ,received N180 sent that back, received a letter from Excel stating Elm legal no longer involved and they offered me a reduced settlement charge of £195 🤣

Judjules

Received today 

blueskyrich

@Judjules - don't worry about the above. At first this appears alarming, but it is in fact a copy of correspondence sent to the parking outfit telling them to submit a Directions Questionnaire otherwise the case will be struck out. In reality, they'll file something to keep the case alive and the circus rolls on! I'm going through a near identical case with VCS and I'm very keen to see them in court. All will be well.

Le_Kirk

Yet again the CNBC treat the claimant more favourably than defendants!  The claimant and/or their solicitor are supposed to be professional outfits doing this for a living; why not just strike out the claim immediately! <END_RANT>