May be too late but am i doomed!!!!

TA1986 · 12 November 2019 at 4:45PM

Hi All,

Thanks in advance and probably going to get slaughtered for this on here :-)

Going to COURT.

I would start off by saying, Stupidly enough before doing any research, etc, I replied to a Claim form from BW acting on behalf of NCP. Thinking an honest reply, probably implicating myself, by responding as I in the defeNCE, would help.

Following stupid advice of ignoring and it will disappear clearly didn't work. I did not keep any of the letters/PCN. Only from the letter before claim onwards

Contravention happened in November last year at a NCP CAR PARK.

Particulars are as follows I parked in a pay and display car alongside ANPR.

The tariffs of the car park are as follows:

Upto 1 hour - £1.00
upto 2 hours - £1.80
upto 3 hours - £ 2.60
upto 4 hours - £3.40
upto 24 hours - £5.80

I entered the car park at approximately 9 am and only intended to stay until 1 pm as I had to take a family member to the airport.

Upon entering my reg and not too certain if I may be over the 4-hour Tariff, I paid £5 with my bank card.

I left the car park at approx to 1:30 pm - 1:45 pm. So, had I paid just £3.60 for the 4-hour tariff, I would have underpaid but this wasn't the case as I paid £5

Not too sure of the timescales but received the PCN. stating that I overstayed in the car park by 45 minutes approx

When the Small Claim came through, I replied stating that I overpaid by £1.60 and therefore this could cover the additional 45 minutes.

My arguments was that the machine should charge you the exact tariffs and nothing in between,

Surprisingly enough, they have now changed how the machine charges for card payments, so that when you pay by card, the amounts will jump according to the tariffs.

Any ideas as to what approach I can take this from as clearly I cocked up with the Defence.

Any help will be appreciated.

Le_Kirk · 12 November 2019 at 5:22PM

Where did you file that defence? Was it on court papers or on-line using MCOL or did you just reply to the Letter Before Claim? Part of your defence, which you might be able to recover in your Witness Statement would be frustration of contract due to the malfunctioning of the PPC's own equipment. You need pictures of the equipment as it is now. Have you completed a DQ? Have you been given a court date?

TA1986 · 12 November 2019 at 8:15PM

Hi Le_Lirk ,

Thanks for your response, much appreciated.

I filed it on MCOL online itself. Okay will look into it and it into the WS.

Dq filled. Court Date 5th December providing BW pay the fee by the 7th Nov.

Kind Regards

TA1986 · 13 November 2019 at 1:31PM

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Where did you file that defence? Was it on court papers or on-line using MCOL or did you just reply to the Letter Before Claim? Part of your defence, which you might be able to recover in your Witness Statement would be frustration of contract due to the malfunctioning of the PPC's own equipment. You need pictures of the equipment as it is now. Have you completed a DQ? Have you been given a court date?

In regards to the above and after looking into a few cases. Do I argue, that no contract existed due to the machine charging incorrectly and therefore it will be a frustrated contract? As the malfunctioning on the machine would mean that at that point the contract has been frustrated and therefore the contract could not be fulfilled.

TIA

As the contract has been frustrated there could have been no breach of contract.

Coupon-mad · 13 November 2019 at 1:36PM

I know this is my favourite subject at the moment but I say the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) applies in paras:

6, 10, 14 and 18 (the first 3 cover the unclear signs with the parking charge in small writing, and the last one covers their failure with the equipment, so they failed in their obligations as service provider).

Read CEC16's thread to see how to argue that in a WS and what it means. We beat BW Legal's barrister in court on Monday (an out of the ordinary case that can be used by everyone else, even though it's not a precedent) and they are smarting, I am sure.

The_Deep · 13 November 2019 at 1:55PM

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Far too few people imo use the CRA. These companies drive a coach and horses through it an far too often get away with it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

TA1986 · 13 November 2019 at 3:06PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I know this is my favourite subject at the moment but I say the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) applies in paras:

6, 10, 14 and 18 (the first 3 cover the unclear signs with the parking charge in small writing, and the last one covers their failure with the equipment, so they failed in their obligations as service provider).

Read CEC16's thread to see how to argue that in a WS and what it means. We beat BW Legal's barrister in court on Monday (an out of the ordinary case that can be used by everyone else, even though it's not a precedent) and they are smarting, I am sure.

Thanks, Coupon Mad on the hinters. Thanks to all actually, as based on my very vague defence , I didn't know which way to approach this from and these tips definitely gave me something to draft in my WS. Based on my Defence, BW probably thought they would walk over me in the courtroom as my defence had no legal backing.
.
I will draw w up my WS in next few days and will post it here for proofing.

Thanks Again

Coupon-mad · 13 November 2019 at 3:12PM

BW probably thought they would walk over me in the courtroom as my defence had no legal backing.

That sums up why they chose the two Defendants in the case I turned up for on 11th.

One (a stranger to me) had fielded a deluded and utterly hopeless defence based on mad ideas about the Bill of Rights (LOL!) and the other - Mr C who is CEC16 - had paid for what turned out to be a short and fairly weak defence.

BW Legal probably cherry picked those two as 'certainly not on a forum' and likely to be walked all over. So those 2 were set up for an application they knew nothing about, to try to reverse the strike out. BW Legal failed, as you know!

In anyone's case v a parking charge, a weak defence can all be changed with a decent WS and evidence and by making the court look at the CRA 2015 and applying their duty to consider the test of fairness, whether it was in the defence or not at all. You do not have to have raised it before, or at all.

TA1986 · 13 November 2019 at 3:16PM

Would it help if the T&CS in the car park merely state that a charge MAY apply. 5.2 in terms

hxxps://imgur.com/a/N73rNMx

Coupon-mad · 13 November 2019 at 3:17PM

You know it does. In my court report I quoted what that sign said in that case!

Read my court report again if you missed that (CEC16's thread*). It's the ENTIRE point!

* NO LINKS GIVEN

TA1986 · 15 November 2019 at 11:57PM

Hi All,

Quick Question.

If I went down the route of '' Frustration of contract'' route will I still be able to apply CPA Sec 2, Para 18.

As frustation argues that ''A frustrated contract is a contract that, subsequent to its formation, and without fault of either party, is incapable of being performed due to an unforeseen event (or events)''

Whereas CPA Sec 2, Para 18 states
A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfill all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.

Or does it still stand as the unforeseen event will be that the machine has malfunctioned and did not charge correctly and CPA applies as they have failed to ensure that the machine is in working order.

TIA

May be too late but am i doomed!!!!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free