DCBL on behalf of ECP incorrect reg

ThisIsntMyNameEither

On my court order? I don't have a court order! 

Gr1pr

You posted a picture of it above,  back on page 2 now 

Coupon-mad

ThisIsntMyNameEither said:

On my court order? I don't have a court order! 

Of course you do. A NOA (Hearing) is an order by the named judge.

Le_Kirk

Somewhere on that NOA (court Order) will either be a date by which the witness statement and evidence from both parties will need to be submitted OR it will say "at least 14 days before the hearing date".

ThisIsntMyNameEither

You are of course all correct, and I was too hasty in posting my Notice of Allocation to see the instructions on page two. A genuine and heartfelt thank you for helping me recognise that I need to pay proper attention to the court paperwork, which tells me that both parties need to provide their evidence and Witness Statements (as Le Kirk says above) "at least 14 days before the hearing", so by 5th January in my case.

Although it's widely expected that DCBL will fold like a cheap suit on, probably, 21st December just before they need to pay the filing fee, I'm cautious enough to want to have my Witness Statements ready by that date since from then until the New Year I'll be making as merry as I can with what the Chancellor has not helped herself to today, and probably be in no fit state to compile a proper defence. It is sufficient to simply rely on the BPA Code of Practice which forbids members from attempting to charge more than £20 for an incorrect registration, or do I need to be more thorough and point out all the other flaws in their case too?

Gr1pr

The latter,  so study several other recently approved WS bundles, after reading the advice in the newbies sticky thread regarding your WS bundle 

No problem in starting it now,  to leave the Xmas break alone 

Coupon-mad

Is it sufficient to simply rely on the BPA Code of Practice which forbids members from attempting to charge more than £20 for an incorrect registration.

Absolutely not! The Government's incoming statutory Code says all keying error cases should see PCNs cancelled. Which is how it should be because ECP keying errors are often caused by their machines & systems, and are not the fault of the driver.

However, DCB Legal will discontinue and fold like a cheap suit, as you rightly say.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

As per earlier comment in this thread, I didn't find this forum until beyond the defence submission so I didn't use the lengthy bullet points in the Newbies thread and just said "I paid the fee at the time, I just entered the reg wrong". Does that mean that I can't use any of the defence paragraphs now in my Witness Statement, because I didn't cite them earlier? I don't have their WS yet, and I'm hoping for that before I have to submit mine but really want to be ahead of the ball for a change! I've read several WS threads but I'm struggling what points are relevant to my circumstance - my only 'go to' point was that since I paid at the time, the PPC have suffered no loss, but I've read in the Newbies thread "DON'T argue 'no loss'" so now I'm completely adrift! 

Coupon-mad

You can always add points (not raised before) about unfair terms and signs because s71 of the CRA 2015 requires courts to consider fairness and prominence of terms & signs.

And as your very weak (...sorry!) defence did raise the fact this was "only a typo", then yes you can refer to both the "bent" joke of the rotten industry's invented Joint Code ...

... and definitely the REAL statutory Code that's in the process of being finalised right now and does not allow the £20 rip off and says PCNs should not be pursued AT ALL for any keying error (unfair term, disproportionate and penal with no legitimate interest to help it stand up to the same tests that applied in ParkingEye v Beavis. The PPC are not out of pocket).

Search the forum for HHJ Pema

Add his Order as an exhibit.

He refused an application by a parking firm to appeal a lost keying error case, saying that the fact the operator CHOOSES to use remote ANPR doesn't mean they can put imbalanced burdens on consumers and set their system up to penalise paying patrons for a VRM typo.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

Coupon-mad said:

You can always add points (not raised before) about unfair terms and signs because s71 of the CRA 2015 requires courts to consider fairness and prominence of terms & signs.

And as your very weak (...sorry!) defence did raise the fact this was "only a typo", then yes you can refer to both the "bent" joke of the rotten industry's invented Joint Code ...

... and definitely the REAL statutory Code that's in the process of being finalised right now and dies not allow the £20 rip off and says PCNs should not be pursued AT ALL for any keying error (unfair term, disproportionate and penal with no legitimate interest to help it stand up to the same tests that applied in ParkingEye v Beavis. The PPC are not out of pocket).

Search the forum for HHJ Pema

Add his Order as an exhibit.

He refused an application by a parking firm to appeal a lost keying error case, saying that the fact the operator CHOOSES to use remote ANPR doesn't mean they can put imbalanced burdens on consumers and set their system up to penalise paying patrons for a VRM typo.

The HHJ Pema judgement looks interesting and I'll certainly add that to my WS, although I did see one person fail at court with it. What I'm struggling with is getting my WS down neatly as per some of the examples you've pointed me at. 

Unusually (well, I think it's unusual) the machine in 'my' car park doesn't give any ticket, and the LCD display has poor resolution especially in sunlight. I get that the onus is on me to input it correctly, but without a piece of paper, I had no opportunity to notice that I'd entered an old registration number. 

When I received a charge in the post, I did the online appeal and showed evidence that I'd paid, and heard no more until DCL got involved and said I'd entered the wrong reg - they even showed that reg that I'd entered so they obviously knew that I'd paid. Then I looked online and found this forum where I learned that the keying error was capped at £20, so when they called I offered to pay that. They said they'd send an invoice for that amount, but when it came it was for £100 so I refused to pay it. I've got evidence of an email I sent them offering £20 - they can't deny I offered them the max the BPA allow them to extort.