Parking Ticket - Court Letter Received

PC_MANC

Thank you. Hats off to you guys, what you're doing to support people is brilliant and appreciated.

Am I right in thinking that my original defence (Paragraph 1-10) is correct, except paragraph 3?

I should mention that I sent two email to Smart Parking around the time. Would these emails be used against me? I just want to make sure I don't contradict myself in my defence. 

Would this be okay for paragraph 3. (I've been searching the threads)
Does anything need to be added or removed?

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

The Defendant is the registered keeper but denies being the driver. The Particulars of Claim falsely assert that the Defendant was the driver without providing any evidence. This is misleading and undermines the credibility of the claim. The Defendant appealed the charge in good faith, stating that payment was made and no financial loss occurred. The appeal was rejected without proper consideration. While the machine may have been operational, a technical fault occurred during the transaction, resulting in an incomplete ticket. There was no mobile signal available to use the app. The Defendant made reasonable efforts to comply and does not accept that a breach occurred.

The Claimant appears to be pursuing this matter based solely on a technicality, despite the fact that payment was made and no financial loss was suffered. This approach is disproportionate and contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonableness expected in consumer contracts.

Gr1pr

Coupon-mad said:

You'd find it a lot easier just to look down the thread titles and find three or four Smart Parking Defences from this past week and copy one!  It is that easy.

You've completely missed the usual point about the untruth in the POC.

You have still missed the untruth out, regardless of the rest 

Only paragraphs 2 and 3 are altered to suit, usually with an ending to paragraph 2 and a bespoke paragraph 3

Paragraph 1 and paragraphs 4 to 10 are not altered or changed,  so we only want to see paragraphs 2 & 3 , suitably worded,  especially to take account of the feedback,  especially the untruth about Pofa2012 

If you were definitely not the driver,  say so at the end of paragraph 2, especially because in paragraph 3 you seem to know what happened,  so could have been a passenger in the vehicle   ( but have not clarified it   )

Car1980

Defend what they are claiming for, not what you think they are claiming for. Trim it down to this:

The correct payment for the correct period of time was made at the machine on site. A ticket was outputted from the machine and displayed. It is completely unclear what the Claimant's particulars are referring to, as "insufficient paid time" is completely untrue.

PC_MANC

I have trimmed down paragraph 3 as suggested. I've amended paragraph 2 (in bold). I've also added POFA info.

I have found a photo of the original PCN dated 19/08/21. The date I parked was the 02/08/21 over 14 days to contact me. I have added the part about POFA.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

I appeal this charge because Smart Parking has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms ACT 2012 (POFA). Smart Parking has failed to meet POFA requirements for keeper liability. The NTK was sent outside 14 days of the contravention

3. The correct payment for the correct period of time was made at the machine on site. A ticket was outputted from the machine and displayed. It is completely unclear what the Claimant's particulars are referring to, as "insufficient paid time" is completely untrue.

Gr1pr

Nobody is appealing for starters,  you are defending 

If you are admitting driving, in paragraph 2, then the Pofa2012 argument goes into the bin, it doesn't help drivers 

You definitely didn't add the correct Pofa2012 wording as seen in other recent cases,  but isnt a factor in your new draft defence anyway due to admitting driving

So Stick to the car1980 paragraph 3,  it's the best option for an admitted driver 

Coupon-mad

PC_MANC said:

I have trimmed down paragraph 3 as suggested. I've amended paragraph 2 (in bold). I've also added POFA info.

I have found a photo of the original PCN dated 19/08/21. The date I parked was the 02/08/21 over 14 days to contact me. I have added the part about POFA.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

I appeal this charge because Smart Parking has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms ACT 2012 (POFA). Smart Parking has failed to meet POFA requirements for keeper liability. The NTK was sent outside 14 days of the contravention

3. The correct payment for the correct period of time was made at the machine on site. A ticket was outputted from the machine and displayed. It is completely unclear what the Claimant's particulars are referring to, as "insufficient paid time" is completely untrue.

You can't add 'and driver' when relying on POFA non compliance.

Copy any Smart defence about the POFA untruth. Search the forum for those words.