PCN (Charge) SIP Parking - invalid ticket (Reg no) |
PCN (Charge) SIP Parking - invalid ticket (Reg no) |
Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 16:25
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Hi Forum,
Hopefully someone could offer me some advice. We've received a Notice to Keeper today from SIP Parking Limited, advising of an ANPR registered failure to pay (vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded). The driver tells me they paid, but when using the Machine it would not accept the reg number. The driver has the ticket (it matches dates and times of the NTK exactly) which has an incorrect reg number (totally, not just a few characters) on it. I assume they did not follow the instructions properly and the machine just kicked out the ticket with the last number on it. In your opinion/experience is it worth appealing, or are we doomed to failure due to not working the machine correctly? Charge is 60 / 100. Any advice greatly appreciated! Thank you This post has been edited by DandanB: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 23:21 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 16:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 12:37
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Saying there may have been an operator error is tantamount to saying the the driver did not comply with the requirement to enter a correct VRN so pay up.
|
|
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 13:32
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 979 Joined: 18 Apr 2015 From: Oop t'north Member No.: 76,816 |
I'm not negating all the discussion over the finer points about defining the various terms and whether they do or don't support the acuality of the contract or POFA.
However since ultimately if it were to get to court and on the assumption that the keeper would be affirming as true that the driver had put £2 in the machine and this was not a ticket that had been transferred from someone else, I believe that the strongest point is that the essence of the contract that both parties thought was taking place has actually taken place to the full extent both parties intended. i.e.£2 has been paid for the parking period that was used. This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 13:32 |
|
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:54
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Taking in to account both of your helpful replies I'm about to fire off the below:
If anyone has any comments or advice I'd be grateful for them, otherwise, I'll see where this gets me. Dear Sir/Madam I’m writing to you as the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx xxx, regarding your parking charge notice number xxxxx. Payment in full for the services used, was made by the driver at the time of parking, using your onsite machines. The signage on site stated a payment of £2 was required for the period the vehicle was parked, and that has been paid. As per the signage, the ticket was on display in the windscreen of the vehicle whilst parked. I enclose a copy of the ticket. An incorrect vehicle registration number (VRN) was printed on the car park ticket. As you can see, the ticket was purchased a minute after your ANPR cameras register the vehicle’s visit and is valid for the whole period. You can also see the driver wrote the correct VRN on the ticket, and a message advising that whilst there was an attempt to enter the VRN, the machine would not accept it. I therefore consider that the essence of the contract, i.e. the £2 consideration paid for the offer to park has been met and the contract is therefore concluded in accordance with the clear intentions of both parties. The failure of the machinery to record the VRN (the signage makes no mention of any such requirement) does not in any way alter this. I do not expect to hear from you again other than to confirm that you have cancelled the charge |
|
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:22
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Might be worth adding that the driver attempted to comply fully with the terms and conditions, but - in reference to the misprinting of the VRN - was frustrated in doing so by the malfunction of your technology.
'Frustration of Contract' would be one of your defence points if this went further, so spell it out to them now. -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:35
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 979 Joined: 18 Apr 2015 From: Oop t'north Member No.: 76,816 |
...and I'd be inclined to add somewhere.
"Should this matter ever come to court my witness statement will attest as the truth that the ticket was one wihch came directly from your machine and not transferred from another vehicle". |
|
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 18:47
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Hi Forum,
I guess as expected my rejection of the PCN was rejected. I attach the reply. Am I correct in thinking the correct course of action is to ignore any further letters, unless and until a letter before action is forthcoming. I would be grateful for confirmation, with the benefit of your experience. Many thanks Dan This post has been edited by DandanB: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 18:52 |
|
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 19:34
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 979 Joined: 18 Apr 2015 From: Oop t'north Member No.: 76,816 |
Yes that's about it. Wait for a LBA.
Be prepared for various chase up letters and probably debt collector letters to which you will reply simply, "The debt is disputed. Refer to your client" |
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 14:07
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Hi Forum,
After several months of quiet, I have now been issued a 'Letter Before Claim'. I include the letter before claim for comment. I still have my original response to the NTK, where I disputed the validity of the parking charge, should I use this reply (which of course has already been rejected) at this stage so as to comply with their stated 'Pre-action Protocol'. I'd be very grateful for your opinion at this stage. Thank you |
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 14:59
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Respond stating what you said in your original appeal, ie failure of equipment , frustration of contract trying to enter correct detail, de minimis error in that the contract was completed as intended, offer of parking acceptance and consideration.
Ignoring would look bad in court. That letter is meant to scare. They can't claim costs and it's not £3.50 to get keeper's details. Especially they can't claim for normal running expenses in the office which would be paid whether you were involved or not. |
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 15:17
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Thank you ostell,
Any reason not to use their online reply system, or should I stick to 'free proof of postage' first class? I'm not sure if I need to work in the term 'de minimis' or if the gist of the letter covers that. My proposed reply (would amend if posted using online system): Dear Sir/Madam, I’m writing to you as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX, regarding your parking charge notice number XXXXXXX. Payment in full for the services used, was made by the driver at the time of parking, using your onsite machines. The signage on site stated a payment of £2 was required for the period the vehicle was parked, and that has been paid. As per the signage, the ticket was on display in the windscreen of the vehicle whilst parked. I enclose a copy of the ticket. Perhaps through machine malfunction, an incorrect vehicle registration number (VRN) was printed on the car park ticket. As you can see, the ticket was purchased a minute after your ANPR cameras register the vehicle's visit and is valid for the whole period. You can also see the driver wrote the correct VRN on the ticket, and a message advising that whilst there was an attempt to enter the VRN, the machine would not accept it. There is nothing in the signage which defines a 'permitted vehicle' nor a 'valid ticket' which makes the signage unclear. Nor is there any condition that the VRN must be on the ticket. In addition, a contract may be void if there is a unilateral or a mutual mistake as to the terms of the contract. I, therefore, consider that despite the unclear signage the essence of the contract, i.e. the £2 consideration paid for the offer to park has been met and the contract is therefore concluded in accordance with the clear intentions of both parties. The failure of your machinery to record the VRN (the signage makes no mention of any such requirement) cannot in any way alter this. I do not expect to hear from you again other than to confirm that you have cancelled the charge. This post has been edited by DandanB: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 15:18 |
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:00
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
I would shorten this on the principle that anything not essential has potential to be twisted against you or used as a distraction
Dear Sir/Madam, Ref ******* Letter Before Claim I have received your Letter Before Claim I deny your allegation that the parking was unpaid The driver paid £2, displayed the ticket that was issued and departed before the expiry of the paid for period. I have enclosed a copy of the ticket. Your ANPR and payment records will confirm its purchase about a minute after the vehicle's arrival. You will observe that the ticket includes a note that the driver made at the time. It was to alert your operative that the payment machine would not accept entry of the vehicle registration and issued a receipt with what appears to be a record of a previously abandoned purchase. Any failure by your company to allocate the payment to (your vehicle registration) is entirely the fault of your own equipment and not that of the driver, who did nothing wrong. I therefore deny any debt to your company and will defend my position in the event of legal action. Yours Faithfully This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:00 |
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:19
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Thank you Redivi, I take your point, that reads much better.
Would you recommend using their online reply system, or should I stick to 'free proof of postage' first class? |
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 17:43
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Online saves a stamp. You just ensure you screenshot to confirm what yo input and that they accepted it.
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 12:03
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 5 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,801 |
Thank you all,
I'm about to complete the online form attached, In section 2 box D the form asks me why I dispute the debt. I read on other threads that a defence should not be entered (though I think this is for the official court documents rather than the PPC PAP). May I ask one of you kind folk, am I correct and safe in entering my dispute in this box ? I'm probably being paranoid Many thanks
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 12:17
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yes you state a bullet as to why you dispute
You're getting confused between a lba response and filing a defence to a claim. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:42 |