Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • pjr1525
    • By pjr1525 12th Apr 18, 10:11 PM
    • 24Posts
    • 31Thanks
    pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    • #1
    • 12th Apr 18, 10:11 PM
    Incomplete vrn entered 12th Apr 18 at 10:11 PM
    Hi, this is my first post, I would appreciate some advice. I recently received a PCN through the post from a company called HX car park management stating that I had parked without a valid ticket. It supplied photos of my car entering and leaving the car park. I still had the ticket in my car confirming that I ,as an occupant of the car, had paid and not overstayed so I sent a photo of the ticket to their appeals department. They sent me an email the next day refusing my appeal saying that I had not completed the vrn and this was a breach of contract and I must pay £60 or£100. I ,as an occupant of the car, had entered the first four digits of the vrn as some car parks that I have used previously required. This information positively identified the ticket related to the car on which it was displayed. In my opinion I am being charged this excessive amount for what amounts to no more than a typing error. Both myself and my wife are oaps and this represent a significant part of our pensions. I would appreciate any advice. Many thanks
    Last edited by pjr1525; 18-04-2018 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Clarification that I was no the driver
Page 9
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 26th Sep 18, 9:35 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Ibcus
    It seems HX has added a new sign to the PD machines.
    If the signage complied why go to expense of adding more?

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Sep 18, 9:42 PM
    • 73,495 Posts
    • 85,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Any idea when that happened?

    What date photo do you have of that machine without that added top section?


    I've tried to get in all the points that I consider important, so that I can expand on them in my witness statement. The majority of the defence was lifted from bargepole’s post, I've tried to make it relevant to my own case, but not sure if I've got it right, some of the points got away from me a bit. I would appreciate any pointers. Regards.
    Originally posted by Pjr1525
    Looks good to me!

    A few suggestions, just extra numbering needed, as shown here for 'split' paragraphs pertaining to the same point of defence, and to include the fact that a 'wrong VRN' could be a key failure, not always human error!

    2.the facts are that the vehicle xxxx xxx of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date correctly and that a ticket was purchased and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment was supplied to the claimant in the form of the parking ticket.

    2.1. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and sufficient VRN was entered to positively identify the vehicle in question.

    2.2. The Claimant’s website states that they recognise human error and do not issue PCNs if a digit or two is incorrectly inputted.
    If the VRN entered is sufficient enough to identify the vehicle, then they must abide by their own statement of recognising human (or sticky key/machine) error and not issue a PCN.
    consumer rights act 2015
    should be:
    Consumer Rights Act 2015
    10.The Protection of Freedom act 2012,
    should be:
    10.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
    And a suggested extra couple of paragraphs to add here, in the light of that new photo!
    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The important requirement of entering a full VRN into the ticket machine should be made clear to patrons in prominent lettering at the ticket machine, that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.

    5.1. The Defendant discovered this week that the Claimant has just added a new sticker/sign to the PDT machine, that was not there on the material date. The added sticker now says: ''All characters from your VRN must be entered in full and exact''.

    5.2. The Defendant questions why that instruction was only just added to the machine, and why the machine instructions are still conspicuous by the absence of any warning, at the very point of transaction/sale, about the risk of a £100 parking charge for not managing a full VRN input, howsoever caused. The tariffs are listed, but there is no 'Red Hand Rule' style warning giving appropriate prominence to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce a 'pitfall or trap' that leads to a hidden penalty.

    5.3. The Claimant may try to rely upon the (completely different) Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, the Defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

    Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

    Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

    Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

    And I notice you have lost any mention of 'no legitimate interest' which is pretty vital in any such defence, so you could add somewhere quite near the end - maybe as #11, and move the last para down to '12 - echoing the Supreme Court words:

    The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 26-09-2018 at 10:12 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 26th Sep 18, 10:01 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Not sure when it was put up.


    I have this picture on my phone, date taken 18/04/2018 21:03




    That is a web version, the original complete with meta data is here on my server, 2MB in size


    http://rcwb.co.uk/HX-King-Street-Wigan/IMG_20180418_210350.jpg
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 26th Sep 18, 10:21 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    Many thanks coupon m. I shall start on that in the morning. Ibcus, thanks for the work that you're doing. Interesting new sign that. It's almost as if they're reading our minds - or the forum! Regards.
    Last edited by Pjr1525; 26-09-2018 at 10:30 PM.
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 26th Sep 18, 11:13 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    http://imgur.com/a/4Iqu9UI Photo taken 17/04/2018 - 3 days after my alleged contravention.
    Last edited by Pjr1525; 26-09-2018 at 11:19 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Sep 18, 11:16 PM
    • 73,495 Posts
    • 85,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Always argue that the point of sale (with instructions) is the machine itself, and that whilst it lists 'charges' it has a 'misleading omission' in that list - nothing about the penalty appears on the screen or the stickers.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 26th Sep 18, 11:28 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Ibcus
    May also add that the ticket doesn't mention a VRN at all, so after it's printed how are you supposed to check it is correct?


    Any reasonable person would assume that M/C was the machines identity code for that car park, so you have no way of knowing the ticket was invalid.


    Sample ticket from my thread


    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Sep 18, 11:39 PM
    • 73,495 Posts
    • 85,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A good point well made!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 29th Sep 18, 3:41 AM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    In the County Court
    Claim No xxxxxx
    Between
    Xxxxxxxxxx (claimant
    And
    Xxxxxxxxxx ( defendant )

    Defence

    1.The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2.the facts are that the vehicle xxxx xxx of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date correctly and that a ticket was purchased and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment was supplied to the claimant early on in the form of the parking ticket.

    2.1 The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and sufficient VRN was entered to positively identify the vehicle in question.

    2.2. The Defendant has requested a list of all payments recorded by the PDT machine and images captured by ANPR on the material date from the claimant’s solicitors.

    2.3 The Claimant’s website states that they recognise human error and do not issue PCNs if a digit or two is incorrectly inputted.
    If the VRN entered is sufficient enough to identify the vehicle, then they must abide by their own statement of recognising human (or sticky key/machine) error and not issue a PCN.


    3.The particulars of claim state that the vehicle xxxx xxx incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxxxx. The particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of practice direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4.Due to the sparseness of particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability or trespass. However, it is denied that the defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

    5.Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The important requirement of entering a full VRN into the ticket machine should be made clear to patrons in prominent lettering at the ticket machine, that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.

    5.1 The defendant discovered this week that the claimant had just added a new sticker/sign to the PDT machine, that was not there on the material date. The added sticker now says: All characters from your VRN must be entered in full and exact.”

    5.2 The defendant questions why that instruction was only just added to the machine, and why the machine instructions are still conspicuous by the absence of any warning, at the very point of transaction/sale, about the risk of a £100 parking charge for not managing a full VRN input, however caused. The tariffs are listed, but but there is no ‘Red Hand Rule’ style warning giving appropriate prominence to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce ‘ a pitfall or trap’ that leads to a hidden penalty.

    5.3 The Claimant may try to rely upon the (completely different) Supreme Court case of Parking eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC.67. However, the defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

    Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, that could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85.”

    Para 199: What matters is that a charge of the order of £85(…) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

    Para 205: The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

    6.The important and mandatory information regarding the fact that ANPR is used for enforcement purposes in the terms and conditions, are in such a small font at the very bottom of the signage as to make it unreadable.

    6.1 The defendant has discovered this week that a new and prominent sign has been added to the existing sign on entering the car park in question that was not there on the material date, informing patrons that ANPR was being used for enforcment purposes, thus adding weight to The defendant's assertion that the existing information that was displayed in very small font on the terms and conditions was unreadable.

    6.2. The defendant questions why the new sign was necessary if the Claimant considers the existing sign adequate.

    6.3 Also it does not state specifically that the ANPR images will be compared to data from the ticket machine for the purpose of issuing a £100 penalty. There is also misleading information on the main sign at the entrance to the car park which states ‘Full terms and conditions at ticket machine’, there are no such ‘Full terms and conditions’ at the ticket machine. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. The claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. Even if it is proven that the Claimant has the necessary authority then it cannot be claimed that there is a commercial justification for issuing parking charge notices to paying patrons, as distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis, because The defendant finds it hard to believe that the landowner would support the ticketing of fee paying patrons, thus risking further revenue. Also there is no deterrent value, because the patrons have already paid, so there is nothing to deter.

    9. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any goods purchased must be ‘fit for purpose’. The Ticket that was issued was not ‘fit for purpose’ The claimant took the defendant’s money to issue an invalid ticket and now wants to charge the defendant a penalty for having an invalid ticket.

    10.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, at section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge on the notice to keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    11. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


    12. In summary, it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using the case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

    I believe the facts contained in this defence are true

    Xxxxxxxxx
    Xxxxxxxxx
    Date.

    I’ve corrected this using coupon mad’s suggestions. Is it ready to submit. Thanks
    Last edited by Pjr1525; 29-09-2018 at 6:04 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 18, 2:17 PM
    • 73,495 Posts
    • 85,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks good to me, except this needs sorting:

    ‘ a pitfall. Or trap’
    should flow better, no full stop:

    'a pitfall or trap'
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 29th Sep 18, 2:45 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    Hi coupon m. Many thanks for your invaluable help. Visited the car park in question this morning and found yet another new sign, one that wasn't there on the material date. ( I have photos of before and after ) It adds weight to my assertion that the font on the terms and conditions. ( para 6 ) is unreadable.
    I will try to upload the new photo. Regards.
    Last edited by Pjr1525; 29-09-2018 at 2:56 PM.
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 29th Sep 18, 2:52 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    http://imgur.com/a/XMb2V4C
    Doesn't the wording on this sign speak volumes about the type of company they are. Everything screams litigation! not fair enforcement. ( if there is such a thing ).
    Last edited by Pjr1525; 29-09-2018 at 3:03 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 18, 3:24 PM
    • 73,495 Posts
    • 85,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yet another added sign that STILL omits the material information that they prefer to hide, i.e. nice and brief and prominent: 'you can get £100 penalty for parking here'.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 29th Sep 18, 4:59 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    "If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85.” Beavis.
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 29th Sep 18, 5:08 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Sending my defence off Monday morning. Probably see you in about a month. Regards. ��
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 29th Sep 18, 5:51 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    I've amended para 6 in my defence above in my own clumsy way, to take into account the new sign.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 18, 8:26 PM
    • 73,495 Posts
    • 85,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's all good to go!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 30th Sep 18, 2:00 AM
    • 154 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Ibcus
    One of the things that I keep thinking when I look at their signs or web site is the choice of domain name.


    It's not HX-CPM as their company name suggests it should be (it is available to buy)


    They decided to show what they intended to do when they purchased HX-PCN, issues pcn's.


    Probably not a defence point but to me it shows from the outset what their business model was, issue as many pcn's a possible without actually managing any parking
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 30th Sep 18, 2:10 AM
    • 154 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Thought I would also add that going off a facebook group set up about this particular car park there are around 21 people with current PCN's from HX, all at varying stages on that group alone



    The majority are invalid VRN entered into the machine, either not enough characters or too many
    • Pjr1525
    • By Pjr1525 30th Sep 18, 3:10 AM
    • 147 Posts
    • 143 Thanks
    Pjr1525
    Incomplete vrn entered
    You are actually correct about the M/C on the ticket being machine I.D. I parked in the Euro car park opposite. The issued tickets are the same but under M/C there is the machine identifying number..
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

215Posts Today

2,788Users online

Martin's Twitter