I PARK , DCB LEGAL court claim 2025 , WS stage

Coupon-mad

Baggies024 said:

Thought that might be a bit much.
Should I disclose that I still have the ticket in my possession? Concern is that whilst it shows the date and time is within the limits, it also shows that only the last 3 digits of the reg are printed. They've never outright stated that this is the issue, but it can't be anything else. I don't see how though that they can prove it was user error and not the fault of their own system.

They can't and it WILL be the fault of the machine.  State that is what happened.

Baggies024

Coupon-mad said:

Baggies024 said:

Thought that might be a bit much.
Should I disclose that I still have the ticket in my possession? Concern is that whilst it shows the date and time is within the limits, it also shows that only the last 3 digits of the reg are printed. They've never outright stated that this is the issue, but it can't be anything else. I don't see how though that they can prove it was user error and not the fault of their own system.

They can't and it WILL be the fault of the machine.  State that is what happened.

Should I add it to my defence even though they haven't cited it as the reason for the charge?

Coupon-mad

Baggies024 said:

POC : 

Should I add it to my defence even though they haven't cited it as the reason for the charge?

Oh yes they have!

Baggies024

Thanks Coupon-mad, here's draft 2: 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/02/2025" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.The claimant’s own evidence shows the said vehicle entering the car park at 12:34. A ticket was purchased and displayed at 12:37 with an expiry time of 15:37. Again, the claimant’s own evidence shows the vehicle leaving at 14:21, 1 hour 16 minutes before the ticket expired. This shows unequivocally that the required fee was paid in full, overpaid in fact. It also proves that there was no subterfuge or attempt to deceive on the part of the defendant. If, therefore, there is an issue with the validity of the ticket, it can only be down to a technical issue with the claimant’s own systems.

Thoughts?

1505grandad

"No PCN was "issued on 24/02/2025" ...."  -  ?

Baggies024

1505grandad said:

"No PCN was "issued on 24/02/2025" ...."  -  ?

Thanks again! Stressful enough without schoolboy errors. Glad I've got some support on here otherwise I'd have given up. The help you provide is invaluable.

Coupon-mad

Defence looks good to go!

Baggies024

Baggies024 said:

Thanks Coupon-mad, here's draft 2: 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/02/2025" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.The claimant’s own evidence shows the said vehicle entering the car park at 12:34. A ticket was purchased and displayed at 12:37 with an expiry time of 15:37. Again, the claimant’s own evidence shows the vehicle leaving at 14:21, 1 hour 16 minutes before the ticket expired. This shows unequivocally that the required fee was paid in full, overpaid in fact. It also proves that there was no subterfuge or attempt to deceive on the part of the defendant. If, therefore, there is an issue with the validity of the ticket, it can only be down to a technical issue with the claimant’s own systems.

Thoughts?

Can anyone advise if this is good enough? Thanks.

Le_Kirk

Baggies024 said:

Baggies024 said:

Thanks Coupon-mad, here's draft 2: 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/02/2025" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.The claimant’s own evidence shows the said vehicle entering the car park at 12:34. A ticket was purchased and displayed at 12:37 with an expiry time of 15:37. Again, the claimant’s own evidence shows the vehicle leaving at 14:21, 1 hour 16 minutes before the ticket expired. This shows unequivocally that the required fee was paid in full, overpaid in fact. It also proves that there was no subterfuge or attempt to deceive on the part of the defendant. If, therefore, there is an issue with the validity of the ticket, it can only be down to a technical issue with the claimant’s own systems.

Thoughts?

Can anyone advise if this is good enough? Thanks.

It still states 24/02/25; should it not be 24/02/24 as per the POC?  You've been given the "looks good" from @Coupon-mad, what more can you need, apart from that date change and making sure you add the rest of the template before sending by email.

Baggies024

Le_Kirk said:

Baggies024 said:

Baggies024 said:

Thanks Coupon-mad, here's draft 2: 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/02/2025" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.The claimant’s own evidence shows the said vehicle entering the car park at 12:34. A ticket was purchased and displayed at 12:37 with an expiry time of 15:37. Again, the claimant’s own evidence shows the vehicle leaving at 14:21, 1 hour 16 minutes before the ticket expired. This shows unequivocally that the required fee was paid in full, overpaid in fact. It also proves that there was no subterfuge or attempt to deceive on the part of the defendant. If, therefore, there is an issue with the validity of the ticket, it can only be down to a technical issue with the claimant’s own systems.

Thoughts?

Can anyone advise if this is good enough? Thanks.

It still states 24/02/25; should it not be 24/02/24 as per the POC?  You've been given the "looks good" from @Coupon-mad, what more can you need, apart from that date change and making sure you add the rest of the template before sending by email.

Apologies to @Coupon-mad, somehow I didn't see your confirmation response. I have already changed the date on the master document so will file today.

Thanks all.