Claim form for PCN - help with defence

Le_Kirk

flowercuppatea said:

2) At the mediation appt. it became apparent that their accusation of what occurred is different to what they alluded to when turning down my original appeal. Is this an element I can use anywhere... surely it should be clear what they are trying to take me to court for? 
3) The court hearing date is in the school holidays, which means my friend who was with me on the day in question (who works in a school) will now be off work that day and could attend court as a witness. Is that something that a) would be allowed considering I have not requested this previously or submitted any statements from her anywhere? b) be useful?

Plenty of witness statements to use as examples of format and style but, of course, your WS must back up and support what you wrote in your defence.  This will be in the POC, have you shown that to us?
Providing you submit a witness statement from your witness they should be able to attend the hearing with you.  On your DQ form there is a box for "how many witnesses" but that is only so they can allocate a room big enough.

flowercuppatea

Hi, thanks for the response Le_Kirk. Yes, shared, it was 'Reason 101) failure to purchase the parking tariff for the reg mark of the vehicle on site and/or within the time allowed'. I did pay, using the correct details and have credit card proof. The machine was broken and had to go to another and queue so it was 9 mins or so before the ticket was paid for. Initially this reads to me about the time issue, but later one response from them seemed to be more about correct reg. Confident I did this correctly (my friend is also very clear about this because she was checking as I did because she's like that!). Have tickets still in my possession from parking there previously so I can show I know what to do. 
I have scoured the internet for reviews of this car park and literally have copies of many, many negative reviews saying they were accused of the same - I wonder if this is any use? So many people in the same boat with this car park. 
Thank you also for the info about the witness.

Coupon-mad

A judge won't take any notice of online reviews.

flowercuppatea

Hi. Just an update on this and a final request for help/your opinion please. We've got a court date in a few weeks and I am just about to submit my witness statement. They have paid the court fee so we are a step closer to this going ahead.
I'm just looking to check in please with a query about what I've written.
Context first: I've kept the ws as succinct as possible whilst relaying the facts of that day and using a couple of (similar?) cases as reference - parking eye v Beavis and HHJ Pema's order in ParkingEye v Wilkinson regarding parking companies must operate fairly and proportionately, especially where mitigating circumstances are present. I've got proof of payment and medical evidence as exhibits too. I feel that it all reads ok. My friend has written a ws too.
What I'm pondering on is the vagueness of the original POC and my interpretation of it. I think if I'm honest I have always looked at that (and have addressed what I believe it alludes to in the WS thoroughly) alongside the visual evidence on the PCN (cameras) of me arriving at the car park and leaving over time. Because the POC also said the contravention time was at the time of exit, I think I've presumed all along that they are also trying to accuse me of overstay as well as apparently not paying on time and with correct details. 
So my question is - should I add a paragraph defending the overstay (easily done) or is that daft because that is not what I think the original POC contravention reason actually refers to and it makes my conduct seem worse. Or does it refer to overstay when it says, in the first part, 'failure to purchase the parking tariff for the reg mark of the vehicle on site'. Parking tariff could perhaps mean for the correct amount for the corresponding duration?
The short overstay is a fact, but it was due in most part to the problem getting a ticket and due to my med condition. Is it better to refer to the overstay in a paragraph in my ws and have it defended, rather than it be brought up? Or not, because it doesn't say correct tariff, but I think I've read it as such all along. I just wish l could interpret clearly what they say I have done! The entry/exit photos show an overstay but the 101 contravention doesn't say that obviously to me. Maybe the overstay is not mentioned by them because they reckon I didn't pay properly, therefore an overstay isn't even a thing because no payment is their argument?
Do I just need to stick to the alleged mis key/time of payment. Sorry this is longwinded - I'm going round in circles a bit here.
@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr @Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad

I think the accusation is they are saying no payment was received that fully matched the VRM. Therefore maybe the keypad failed (not your fault). Or is it "didn't pay in time"? Who knows. Either way, there's no 'legitimate interest' to support the claim, unlike in Beavis

But we are having to guess, which is preposterous and you should say exactly that in your WS.

I don't follow this because HHJ Pema had nothing to do with Excel v Wilkinson:

HHJ Pema's order in ParkingEye v Wilkinson regarding parking companies must operate fairly and proportionately, especially where mitigating circumstances are present. 

Anyway yours is a '5 minute rule' ("you took too long to pay!") case which is now banned, having been exposed in Excel v Hannah Robinson as an unfair term = unenforceable in law. You need to refer to that case too.

 it was 'Reason 101) failure to purchase the parking tariff for the reg mark of the vehicle on site and/or within the time allowed'. I did pay, using the correct details and have credit card proof. The machine was broken and had to go to another and queue so it was 9 mins or so before the ticket was paid for. Initially this reads to me about the time issue, but later one response from them seemed to be more about correct reg. Confident I did this correctly (my friend is also very clear about this because she was checking as I did because she's like that!). Have tickets still in my possession from parking there previously so I can show I know what to do. 

Include all of the above. But DON'T submit your WS early. Wait and hope they send theirs first.

flowercuppatea

Thanks @Coupon-mad, will amend where needed based on this and do as advised.

flowercuppatea

Hi @Coupon-mad I have received their WS (49 pages!) and am fully in the picture now. I'm not guessing anymore and it is clear. I'd like to ask for help again but have just read on another thread to be wary because these pages are monitored by the legal firms - but surely that can't matter because I am going to send them everything and be transparent anyway?
 And also, are you happy to help again - I'm aware that you have given a lot of your time already. 

Coupon-mad

I'm on holiday now but post your queries for others to help.

flowercuppatea

Have a lovely holiday @Coupon-mad.

flowercuppatea

Hi All, I have now received their WS and am fully in the picture. I need to submit mine by early next week so have a little time.
They seem to be focusing on the two things: the mis type (according to their records they present it was only partially inputted. I still confidently maintain that I submitted more than 2 letters because I know how to use a pay and display machine, and have a ticket for a previous visit there as evidence showing as such, but that does not concur with their evidence log. Their evidence is just a simple typed log of all cars that day though - it isn't proof of anything in my view. There is only one 2 letter input on the extensive log, they show all others and there are some other partial registrations, none as short as mine though. They are not saying I didn't pay or buy a ticket, but are pushing with major keying error and have relayed this point to their terms and conditions and other court cases. I'm flummoxed by how this purchase could be so badly inputted - it absolutely must be a machine malfunction, I would never only input 2 letters it doesn't make sense. Ironically, they do assign the payment they received for the two letters to me because they also say that I overstayed for what I paid for (which is correct, due to struggling to buy a ticket in a timely manner due to the aforementioned broken machine and also due to my medical condition). They say they factor in the medical needs by providing disabled spaces and would allow 10 mins over. I don't use disabled spaces and my overstay was 14 mins. I believe the extra minutes spent trying to buy the ticket negate this argument. 

There are many points throughout their 49 pages of WS, some generic.

One is criticising me for not going to the second stage of appeal which is correct (but I had done enough research to know that this was likely useless). 'It is respectfully submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charge had been issued incorrectly, they would have engaged with the appeals process further.' Not sure if/how I answer that?

Also, the irony of this comment on a 49 page document! 'The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the substantive issues. It is submitted the this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my Company’s time.'

Any advice on any/all of the above please?

Prior to receiving their WS I had provisionally written mine so am part way there but would appreciate any help.

@Le_Kirk @Gr1pr