Not a hospital car park

fineclaret

I think they are relevant in that the technicality of failing to specify a breach, and failure to accurately represent the breach, are one and the same when establishing breach of implied contract terms from the PoC. Even with the PoC in front of them, people here have not been able to correctly represent what happened, supporting the view that the PoC is deficient.

fineclaret

Do 'exhibits' have to be in the same actual document as the WS? I am having some issues with clunky software, as all of this has to be prepared on a phone. It would be easier to send the WS, photos and transcripts separately.

Coupon-mad

They should be TWO separate attachments to the same email.

The WS is one PDF after you've signed & dated it (on a phone, that can be done signing a piece of white paper & taking a photo of the signature & date).

The other PDF is the exhibits in number order (same order as they are mentioned in the WS) combined into one document by using a free 'merge PDF' online tool you can find.

Then compressed using the same PDF tool.

fineclaret

My wife discovered the receipts for the CP payment, in the app. Should have done this a while ago. I've been asking CPS for timings without response. Although ANPR clocked us in at 13:48 and out at 16:12, the payment is timed at 14:04. Which I argued in my initial appeal: it took "at least 10 minutes" to pay. Turns out it was 16. The phone no. just rang, so we downloaded the app, with limited signal, and had to laboriously type everything in. So we were just 8 minutes over, on the assumption timing starts on payment. Of course, a debate could be had about that, but the norm, in ticketed parking, would be that this is the case. 16 minutes is a long time, but hey, we're doddery! (we're not doddery).

Coupon-mad

Although ANPR clocked us in at 13:48 and out at 16:12, the payment is timed at 14:04. Which I argued in my initial appeal: it took "at least 10 minutes" to pay. Turns out it was 16.

Not necessarily 16 mins because the ANPR clock is completely unconnected to the app. We've seen ANPR clocks an hour out before (usually them forgetting that the clocks went back, or setting the IN camera to BST and the OUT camera to European time!) but a couple of minutes out is very common with ANPR.

I'm saying this to stop you from just taking their unproven (2 separate systems) '16 minutes' as gospel. Certainly don't say in your WS "Turns out it was 16." I doubt it was.

And the (completely understandable) faffing around does need spelling out in the WS to make it clear that the fault was with the car park operator, not arising from any bad conduct, delay or mischief by the driver.

You need HMRC v NCP 'green button' quote and transcript as an exhibit.  Have you got that case, I can't recall?

Search the forum for it if not.

fineclaret

Well, our joint perception is that it was 'at least 10'. The uncertainty alone should be reasonably persuasive. Reasonable assumption is that ANPR and payments system clocks tell the same time. "They might not" isn't going to wash.

fineclaret

Well, the Court has finally seen sense and rescheduled the Preliminary Hearing for a day I will be in the country and in a position to receive phone calls! My WS seemed to do the trick- a direct complaint had evoked a very snotty response from the judge who had made the decision. But in my WS, I laid it on with a trowel.

Coupon-mad

fineclaret said:

Well, the Court has finally seen sense and rescheduled the Preliminary Hearing for a day I will be in the country and in a position to receive phone calls! My WS seemed to do the trick- a direct complaint had evoked a very snotty response from the judge who had made the decision. But in my WS, I laid it on with a trowel.

Very good! Did the latest order come from a different Judge who reviewed the WS?

Did you include HMRC v NCP as an exhibit? If not, add it now attached to a short skeketon argument explaining the relevance.

fineclaret

Coupon-mad said:

Very good! Did the latest order come from a different Judge who reviewed the WS?

Did you include HMRC v NCP as an exhibit? If not, add it now attached to a short skeketon argument explaining the relevance.

I'd lay odds it was a different judge - the first seemed to be hiding behind a judicial version of Papal Infallibility.

I will add HMRC vs NCP. I have also requested all ANPR pictures from the Claimant, or a statement that the 2 pictures are the sole record, as we have a vague recollection of driving in and out initially, and so the entry time may be that of first entry, and may account for some of the unusually long pre-payment time. It did take a long time, though.

The Claimant does not seem to think we bought a ticket at all though. It's not clear - a generic "parking without a ticket" could cover either overstay or failure to purchase. It should be made explicit IMO. I cover this in the WS.

Coupon-mad

Or it could cover a VRM keying error.