IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Court Claim Received. 1st Draft Defence
Options
Notepad2608
Posts: 18 Forumite
DUPLICATE POST.
PLEASE SEE PNC, WRONG RINGO CODE
Good afternoon all.
I made a bit of a mess in posting this first time around so apologies if you have seen this before.
This relates to a post from 30th June 2017. PNC, Wrong RinGo Code. Which I have posted below for back ground information.
I am now at the point where court proceedings have begun. I have sent an acknowledgment of service and a defence now needs to be submitted by 16th April.
The claimant is Vehicle Control Services Ltd and the particulars of the claim state.
!!!8220;The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land.!!!8221;
They go on to say that the T&Cs are displayed on car park signage.
Defence:
1) The defendant cannot be considered bound by any contract with VCS as this would be a distance contract and VCS have not complied with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Namely, VCS didn!!!8217;t supply or make available all of the applicable information listed in Schedule 2 of the above regulations.
These regs are quite specific. VCS meet most of the requirements but fail to display an address on their signage. They only display company name, VAT# and registered company#. They do give a help line phone number though. Would this be considered as !!!8220;making available!!!8221;?
2) Section 40 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 states that a consumers express consent is required, prior to entering into a contract, for any additional charges to be made by the trader. I would argue that simply including the statement below on the car park signage is in no way express permission from consumers. It is more akin to a pre-checked tick box, something the regulations forbid.
!!!8220;By parking on this private land you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for any action breaching the terms and conditions.!!!8221;
Am I scraping the barrel with this one?
3) The Protection of Freedom of Information Act 2012 (Schedule 4) states that only the owner or occupier of the land or those authorised by the owner or occupier of the land can form a contract with the driver. At no point has it been made clear who is the owner/occupier of the land at Albert street car park or, if it is not the claimant, if VCS have the appropriate authority to form a contract with the defendant.
4) Should the court find that a binding contract did exist between VCS and the defendant then it is denied that a breach of the signed T&Cs occurred for the following reasons:
The claim is based on ANPR photographs of my arrival and departure on the car park and therefore the only 3 of the T&Cs or !!!8220;Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following,!!!8221; can possibly apply. These are.
a) Not making payment within 10 minutes of arriving.
b) Overstaying the expiry time.
c) Not entering full and accurate registration number.
a) The NTK issued by VCS shows the arrival and departure of the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle at Albert Street car park at 16:04 and 16:35 respectively on the 5th April 2017. This is by means of ANPR photographs. However, A payment of £1:40 (fee for 1 hours parking) was made via the RinGo pay by phone service at 16:09.
The following evidence supports this:
VCS!!!8217;s own RinGo records show a call made, payment taken and parking action started at 16:09.
A screen shot from the defendant!!!8217;s mobile phone shows a call made to RinGo at 16:06.
The defendant!!!8217;s credit card statement shows that Excel Parking Services charged £1:40 on the day in question. (Excel are the most prominent company on the signs, large logo etc. However both Excel and VCS are in the detail of the sign)
b) On the 5th April 2017 £1:40 was the fee for 1 hours parking. The ANPR records show the vehical was parked for 31 minutes.
c) The RinGo record mentioned above shows the registration entered accurately and in full.
d) All other T&Cs are not applicable.
I am choosing to ignore the fact that I entered the wrong code when using the pay by phone service as it seems an irrelevant point in the context of the T&Cs i.e. they do not specify that the driver has to provide their location.
Statement of truth.
Once again any advice you can offer would be most welcome. Thanks.
PLEASE SEE PNC, WRONG RINGO CODE
Good afternoon all.
I made a bit of a mess in posting this first time around so apologies if you have seen this before.
This relates to a post from 30th June 2017. PNC, Wrong RinGo Code. Which I have posted below for back ground information.
I am now at the point where court proceedings have begun. I have sent an acknowledgment of service and a defence now needs to be submitted by 16th April.
The claimant is Vehicle Control Services Ltd and the particulars of the claim state.
!!!8220;The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land.!!!8221;
They go on to say that the T&Cs are displayed on car park signage.
Defence:
1) The defendant cannot be considered bound by any contract with VCS as this would be a distance contract and VCS have not complied with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Namely, VCS didn!!!8217;t supply or make available all of the applicable information listed in Schedule 2 of the above regulations.
These regs are quite specific. VCS meet most of the requirements but fail to display an address on their signage. They only display company name, VAT# and registered company#. They do give a help line phone number though. Would this be considered as !!!8220;making available!!!8221;?
2) Section 40 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 states that a consumers express consent is required, prior to entering into a contract, for any additional charges to be made by the trader. I would argue that simply including the statement below on the car park signage is in no way express permission from consumers. It is more akin to a pre-checked tick box, something the regulations forbid.
!!!8220;By parking on this private land you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for any action breaching the terms and conditions.!!!8221;
Am I scraping the barrel with this one?
3) The Protection of Freedom of Information Act 2012 (Schedule 4) states that only the owner or occupier of the land or those authorised by the owner or occupier of the land can form a contract with the driver. At no point has it been made clear who is the owner/occupier of the land at Albert street car park or, if it is not the claimant, if VCS have the appropriate authority to form a contract with the defendant.
4) Should the court find that a binding contract did exist between VCS and the defendant then it is denied that a breach of the signed T&Cs occurred for the following reasons:
The claim is based on ANPR photographs of my arrival and departure on the car park and therefore the only 3 of the T&Cs or !!!8220;Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following,!!!8221; can possibly apply. These are.
a) Not making payment within 10 minutes of arriving.
b) Overstaying the expiry time.
c) Not entering full and accurate registration number.
a) The NTK issued by VCS shows the arrival and departure of the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle at Albert Street car park at 16:04 and 16:35 respectively on the 5th April 2017. This is by means of ANPR photographs. However, A payment of £1:40 (fee for 1 hours parking) was made via the RinGo pay by phone service at 16:09.
The following evidence supports this:
VCS!!!8217;s own RinGo records show a call made, payment taken and parking action started at 16:09.
A screen shot from the defendant!!!8217;s mobile phone shows a call made to RinGo at 16:06.
The defendant!!!8217;s credit card statement shows that Excel Parking Services charged £1:40 on the day in question. (Excel are the most prominent company on the signs, large logo etc. However both Excel and VCS are in the detail of the sign)
b) On the 5th April 2017 £1:40 was the fee for 1 hours parking. The ANPR records show the vehical was parked for 31 minutes.
c) The RinGo record mentioned above shows the registration entered accurately and in full.
d) All other T&Cs are not applicable.
I am choosing to ignore the fact that I entered the wrong code when using the pay by phone service as it seems an irrelevant point in the context of the T&Cs i.e. they do not specify that the driver has to provide their location.
Statement of truth.
Once again any advice you can offer would be most welcome. Thanks.
0
Comments
-
No need for a new thread. Keep everything in the one thread which gives all the background to your case
Copy and paste this into your original thread and let this one die.0 -
30th Jun 17 at 1:33 PM
Good afternoon all.
I’ll start by saying the info here is great. Thanks
This is the situation.
-Car parked in a camera controlled car park managed by Excel Parking.
-Automated RinGo phone line used to pay for an hours parking.
-Left 30 minutes later.
-Received a PCN.
When calling RinGo, the car park identification code was entered as 2006 instead of 2008. 2006 is the code for the immediately adjacent car park also managed by Excel with the same fees to park.
It is obvious to anyone that parking was paid for. The RinGo records show that payment was made only a minute or two after the photo on the PCN shows the car arriving in car park 2008.
Yes, an error has been made in entering the wrong car park ID code but the car can’t be in two places at once. It is clear that payment was intended for parking in car park 2008 (where Excel’s photographs prove the car is parked).
An appeal was made to Excel Parking and the IAS and both have dismissed the appeal.
This just feels wrong. Can anyone advise on a next move?
Thanks.0 -
See #2
No need for multiple threads over your case
Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving. You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving (or delete it!)0 -
Two of your threads merged earlier today, and crazily you start a third.0
-
No need for a new thread. Keep everything in the one thread which gives all the background to your case
Copy and paste this into your original thread and let this one die.
Hi.
I have kind of done that. I have had the original post and a post I made a couple of days ago merged by Crabman.
The problem is the heading is the original one and isn't inspiring may replies.
This is my 3rd post. I have started to put together a defence in this one. To be honest there weren't too many replies to my original post as the advice was research, sit tight and wait for a claim. I have just posted all the relevant detail above.
If it's the "done thing" I was going to stick with this post and go back and edit my old posts with SUPERCEDDED in big letters.
Will that be ok?0 -
Feel free to edit the title of any thread you have started.Notepad2608 wrote: »The problem is the heading is the original one and isn't inspiring may replies.
I am not going to explain how to do that but it is simple for anyone who can manage to edit a post.0 -
Notepad2608 wrote: »I have kind of done that. I have had the original post and a post I made a couple of days ago merged by Crabman........
If it's the "done thing" I was going to stick with this post and go back and edit my old posts with SUPERCEDDED in big letters.
Will that be ok?
No. .
The done thing is to keep it all in the original thread!
All you need to do is as advised in #2 - don't ask for this one to be merged as well!0 -
That Defence is very poor IMHO.
Paras. 1) and 2) about the CCR 2013 will go nowhere with most Judges. Get rid of them.
Para. 4) is the key winning point, and should be the first para. that the Judge reads, without having to wade through a load of irrelevant waffle preceding it.
You paid the correct fee for parking, and accidentally entered the wrong location code. You have the proof that you paid via RingGo, and if the requirement to enter the correct location code was not expressly stated on the sign, you did not breach any of their terms.
At worst, it was an honest mistake, which should be treated as de minimis.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Quentin. KiethP. Sorry. I didn't mean to rock the boat. I will copy the above into my original post and change the title.
Bargepole: Thanks0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards