PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

HELP. Received county court letter re. Parking fine, Civil enforement because of 35min delay in buying ticket
Borolad81
post Fri, 6 Aug 2021 - 23:05
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



First time posting here.

Last year I parked in a private car park and decided to get my 4yr old child out of the car and into his pushchair... I started walking to my destination whilst trying to pay for parking via app.. however the app would not load even though my internet was working fine. After 35 mins of trying the app suddenly started working and I paid for the parking ticket for my stay.

However I received parking fine letters from civil enforement which I decided to ignore all along.

Received a county court letter few days back with a issue date of 27th july. Today I have filed a AOS online.

Any help will be much appreciated on how to take it from here.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Fri, 6 Aug 2021 - 23:05
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 15:24
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The point around the website taking ages to load, and the payment being made, is really string. They provided online method of payment that you used, as far and fast as possible , but complained it wasn't fast enough. Stress that to the court in your witness statement. The claimant can't then complain about how long it took, it was their own equipment at fault!s
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borolad81
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 17:26
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



This is the point in trying to make... That it's because of a problem with the claimants website that caused the delay in me making payment.

Do I need to do a witness statent seprate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 17:37
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, you know this! The newbies thread tells you that you'll be filling a witness statement alongside other evidence
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borolad81
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 20:42
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant entered the car park at 5pm and chose to pay for parking via the carparks website as the defendant did not hold any cash, the defendant then with their 4 yr old child, left the car and proceeded walking to their destination, however there seemed to be some frustration with the car parks website which made it impossible for the defendant to make payment, after several attempts the website loaded and the defendant was able to make payment which the defendant believes was approx 35 mins after entering the car park.

The total amount the defendant paid for parking was £3 which was sufficient for the duration of 3 hours of parking. The defendant entered the car park at 5pm and exited the car park at 7.30pm which equates to 2.5 hours parking time so effectively the defendant overpaid for the parking. Payment was not an issue for the defendant, the issue was the claimants website was not loading even though other web based services on my smartphone were working as normal.

The defendant did call the telephone number on a letter the defendant was sent in order to be able to discuss this matter with the claimant but unfortunately it was an automated number which only gave an option to make a card payment in relation to the parking fine and not actually be able to discuss the matter with a person.

The claimant has also escalated the charge to an excessive £182 which I believe is double recovery.
This is clearly an abuse of process by the claimant.


i have edited it abit, any advice much appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 20:55
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,109
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



What?

As I understand it, we have no idea what is alleged other than this little snippet:


So the charge is presumably for not paying in time

Is that correct?

Correct


And as:
The driver returned to the car;
And found what? Nothing until i received a letter from CIV ENF
However I received parking fine letters from civil enforement which I decided to ignore all along.


So the site is monitored by camera;
You drove in and drove out, HAVING PAID.
Providing you paid for your time on site then THIS is your primary defence, not theoretical **** about the status of the PPC, obscurity of signs and goodness knows what else!

But hey, ho, the basics don't have the same bravura as template paragraphs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:13
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Those aren't template para, hca

But hey ho.

That is A defence. As you know, you don't file AN argument , but all applicable

And this is why it's their first line.

You have real issues with the template defence. Please, write your own for people to use. Or not. But your snipes at helping people through this are NOT helpful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borolad81
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:23
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



just when i thought i was getting the jist of things, im lost again mellow.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:26
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, you're not lost. HCA doesn't like templates, but doesn't fill the gap removing them would take.

Ignore them for now. They're wrong, as your primary defence IS the fact you paid. That's why it's para 2 and 3

Oh, and you know you've written more then 2 para? EVERY para must have a number. 2,3,4,5,6,7, and so on. This means yiu will need to renumber the latter paragraph
Do NOT use 2.1 3.2 etc. Keep it simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:29
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,109
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I want the OP's facts before having to rely on procedural matters.

Others prefer to disregard/not investigate issues regarding the breach (which is the fundamental starting point for any subsequent procedure), but hey-ho!

And as regards templates, judging by many posters' comments along the lines of 'you'll get a rejection anyway'(both at the PPC and POPLA stages) then perhaps more time should be spent investigating whether substantive breaches have occurred.

I am not prepared to just follow the party line - received wisdom, anecdote and hearsay are not comfortable bedfellows for me. I'm persuaded by evidence, and I think OPs deserve more than just here's a template, they should be given the relevant part of the Act, the apparently errant part of a NTK and asked to compare and contrast. Not just 'it doesn't comply with......' without any substantive evidence in support.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:34
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Which isn't relevant here, however

The facts were covered sufficiently. They're really simple. And the defence covers them in the written by the OP para just above. And, when the time comes, their witness statement will also cover it. And, I would imagine, would be REALLY persuasive.

But, you know, covering all the procedural bases as well doesn't hurt. It really, really doesn't.

Oh, and in yiur summary, you missed a detail the OP didn't leave out - the delay in payment was *caused by the claimants website being slow * which is even more important, as it's two defence points in one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:35
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,395
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



QUOTE
The claimant has also escalated the charge to an excessive £182 which I believe is double recovery.

Don't use 'I'. But anyway isn't the point around double recovery covered elsewhere in the template bits (point 6)? If so, no need to cover it twice.
QUOTE
just when i thought i was getting the jist of things, im lost again mellow.gif

Don't be, you're on the right track. I'd potentially emphasise the point a bit more in paras 2 & 3 that the alleged breach they are taking to you court for did not occur, because you complied with all the terms and paid for the parking. The whole basis of their claim is because they say you didn't pay 'in time' - and the sole reason for that is their malfunctioning/slow website, a factor entirely out of your control.

This post has been edited by DWMB2: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:36


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:36
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



As above. That's a very good short summary
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 21:43
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,109
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




I referred to evidence.

An assertion that the delay in payment was *caused by the claimants website being slow * is just that, an assertion.

If the OP wants to rely on this, then the legal burden is theirs and this is not discharged with 'because I say so', that's not how the system works.

In court a judge might be persuaded by a person's credibility, it happens. But until then and without proof it's an unsupported assertion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borolad81
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:17
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant entered the car park at 19.55 and chose to pay for parking via the carparks website as the defendant did not hold any cash, the defendant then with their 4 yr old child, left the car and proceeded walking to their destination, however there seemed to be some frustration with the car parks website which made it impossible for the defendant to make payment, after several attempts the website loaded and the defendant was able to make payment which the defendant believes was approx 25 mins after entering the car park.

The total amount the defendant paid for parking was £3 which was sufficient for the duration of 180 minutes of parking. The defendant entered the car park at 19.55 and exited the car park at 22.53 which equates to 178 minutes parking time so effectively the defendant overpaid for the parking. Payment was not an issue for the defendant, the issue was the claimants website was not loading even though other web based services on my smartphone were working as normal. The alleged breach the claimant is taking the defendant to court for did not occur, because the defendant complied with all the terms and paid for the parking. The sole reason for the delay in making payment was the malfunctioning of the claimants website, a factor entirely out of the defendants control.
The defendant did call the telephone number on a letter the defendant was sent in order to be able to discuss this matter with the claimant but unfortunately it was an automated number which only gave an option to make a card payment in relation to the parking fine and not actually be able to discuss the matter with a person.

The claimant has also escalated the charge to an excessive £182 which I believe is double recovery.
This is clearly an abuse of process by the claimant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:21
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Wrong. If it's in a WS, It's evidence. It's confirmed with a statement of truth. It just might not be proof. But being disclosed in the defence means the claimant has to rebut it. If they don't, they're accepting the D version to be fact.
Of course, it would be fantastic if the op had some corroboration. But it's hardly Reasonable of them to have it, is it. They're not the web admin for the claimant. They have no way of forcing disclosure, as you well know. So they're left making two things they can EVIDENCE - time on site vs time paid for, and the slow,website - with the former being corroborated with tickets, payment records etc.

There is a difference between an assertion, evidence, and proof.

OP - you need to number every para

You can also simplify that. You've narrated way too much. Keep it simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borolad81
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:26
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant entered the car park at 19.55 and chose to pay for parking via the carparks website as the defendant did not hold any cash, the defendant then with their 4 yr old child, left the car and proceeded walking to their destination, however there seemed to be some frustration with the car parks website which made it impossible for the defendant to make payment, after several attempts the website loaded and the defendant was able to make payment which the defendant believes was approx 25 mins after entering the car park. The total amount the defendant paid for parking was £3 which was sufficient for the duration of 180 minutes of parking. The defendant entered the car park at 19.55 and exited the car park at 22.53 which equates to 178 minutes parking time so effectively the defendant overpaid for the parking. Payment was not an issue for the defendant, the issue was the claimants website was not loading even though other web based services on my smartphone were working as normal. The alleged breach the claimant is taking the defendant to court for did not occur, because the defendant complied with all the terms and paid for the parking. The sole reason for the delay in making payment was the malfunctioning of the claimants website, a factor entirely out of the defendants control. The defendant did call the telephone number on a letter the defendant was sent in order to be able to discuss this matter with the claimant but unfortunately it was an automated number which only gave an option to make a card payment in relation to the parking fine and not actually be able to discuss the matter with a person. The claimant has also escalated the charge to an excessive £182 which I believe is double recovery. This is clearly an abuse of process by the claimant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:27
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I didn't say make it only one para

I said
- make it more concise
- number every para


You know that's too long a para. Split it up. That gives you para 3 and 4 now from para 3

Then renumber the rest of the defence to suit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:28
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,395
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



QUOTE (Borolad81 @ Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 23:17) *
The claimant has also escalated the charge to an excessive £182 which I believe is double recovery.
This is clearly an abuse of process by the claimant.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, isn't double recovery covered elsewhere in your defence? (It's in the template) - If so, you don't need to mention it separately in this part.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Borolad81
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:35
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5 Aug 2021
From: middlesbrough
Member No.: 113,626



The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant entered the car park at 19.55 and chose to pay for parking via the carparks website as the defendant did not hold any cash, the defendant then with their 4 yr old child, left the car and proceeded walking to their destination, however there seemed to be some frustration with the car parks website which made it impossible for the defendant to make payment, after several attempts the website loaded and the defendant was able to make payment which the defendant believes was approx 25 mins after entering the car park.

4. The total amount the defendant paid for parking was £3 which was sufficient for the duration of 180 minutes of parking. The defendant entered the car park at 19.55 and exited the car park at 22.53 which equates to 178 minutes parking time so effectively the defendant overpaid for the parking. Payment was not an issue for the defendant, the issue was the claimants website was not loading even though other web based services on my smartphone were working as normal. The alleged breach the claimant is taking the defendant to court for did not occur, because the defendant complied with all the terms and paid for the parking. The sole reason for the delay in making payment was the malfunctioning of the claimants website, a factor entirely out of the defendants control.
5. The defendant did call the telephone number on a letter the defendant was sent in order to be able to discuss this matter with the claimant but unfortunately it was an automated number which only gave an option to make a card payment in relation to the parking fine and not actually be able to discuss the matter with a person.

6. The claimant has also escalated the charge to an excessive £182, this is clearly an abuse of process by the claimant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Aug 2021 - 22:47
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,892
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Delete 6. You've been told three times, and you know it's in the template.

5 when did you call? Same night? Days later? It's not clear.

3) it wasn't impossible. You did eventually make payment. It's at most delayed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 28th November 2021 - 08:10
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.