Claim form DCB legal

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81087997/#Comment_81087997

Are you still going to state the wrong ppc?

"(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad....."

Daniel_3560

1505grandad said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81087997/#Comment_81087997

Are you still going to state the wrong ppc?

"(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad....."

Do you suggest I remove this from my defence? Sorry just wasn't understanding why it wasn't relevant 

Gr1pr

Use the correct name of the parking company if true  ( its definitely NOT Excel Parking. ) so full and correct details 

Remove it if its nothing to do with your case 

Use the correct email address for the CNBC in Northampton, definitely not the one you mentioned that was retired about 7 or 8 months ago 

Coupon-mad

Daniel_3560 said:

1505grandad said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81087997/#Comment_81087997

Are you still going to state the wrong ppc?

"(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad....."

Do you suggest I remove this from my defence? Sorry just wasn't understanding why it wasn't relevant 

Your claimant IS NOT Excel Parking!  And don't email your defence to the wrong email address.  Please go back and read the first 12 steps again.

Le_Kirk

Daniel_3560 said:

1505grandad said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81087997/#Comment_81087997

Are you still going to state the wrong ppc?

"(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad....."

Do you suggest I remove this from my defence? Sorry just wasn't understanding why it wasn't relevant 

I think @1505grandad is suggesting you use the correct name, which, if your claim form is correct up thread it is Euro Car Parks Limited.

1505grandad

I must admit that I assumed the poster knew who was suing them.

Daniel_3560

Thanks for the responses yes I knew who was suing I just had overlooked the name which is my mistake, I am not 100% that the meter is notoriously faulty like with excel parking so I may not use that part and remove it again thank you all for the helpful responses. 

Coupon-mad

Just remove the word 'notoriously' as well as 'Excel Parking'.  Don't remove the point.

Daniel_3560

Thanks @Coupon-mad all done please see below

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 appears 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". 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, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3. The Defendant paid the correct parking fee and there was no breach by conduct. There is no cause of action. This charge attempts to penalise the Defendant, who bought a ticket for three hours. Evidence supporting this claim will be provided in the Defendant's witness statement. The machine was malfunctioning and would only accept the first letter of the registration. Registration plate is not a valid or lawful justification to penalise motorists. There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a motorist for a mere typo. 

4.  The Defendant asserts that the ticket machine was faulty at that time, causing a discrepancy between the purchased ticket and the vehicle registration mark (VRM). Despite the Defendant's best endeavours, a repeated malfunction in the machine led to the parking charge and this fault lies with the Claimant.

5.  There is a statutory test of fairness that courts must apply (s71 Consumer Rights Act 2015).  There are issues that render this parking charge to be unfair, out of all proportion and purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM (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.  This is just the type of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court held would not save a claim from falling foul of the penalty rule, which was said to be 'engaged' in all parking cases.

(b). This unfairness specifically breaches the CRA 2015 and it is why (in the incoming statutory Code of Practice) the DLUHC has banned parking charges from being pursued for 'keypad errors' and also requires human checks to avoid unfair PCNs.  The Government takes the view that the machine should be linked to the ANPR so that it is impossible to buy a ticket without the full registration. There is no commercial justification, fairness or justice in knowingly issuing PCNs for VRM 'errors' which actually arise from system glitches that print error codes or partial VRMs instead of the information drivers try to type into a (typically old and sticky) keypad.

(c) This Claimant has seen the P&D ticket attached to the Defendant's appeal email at the time. As a professional parking operator, even if they initially missed it, they should have admitted that this was caused by their own keypad failure.  Given this state of affairs, there was no just or 'reasonable cause' for this Claimant to have applied for the keeper data from the DVLA. They had the payment logs to check against all along, and their machine failure (the Defendant would never have just typed one letter) is their own responsibility and does not excuse them from this course of unjustified harassment that has lasted months and has ruined the Defendant's peace of mind.

I then email this to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk? I should receive an automatic reply telling me it has been sent?

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes, once you've added the rest of the Template Defence to take it to over 30 paragraphs (don't show us all that though!).

Add to here, but not in bold, of course:

the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.