Notice of County Court claim from legal recovery company for parking fine

[Amethyst]

I would....but hang on see what Ostell reckons.... it seems slightly obsessive to send 21 photos …. shame they couldn't put as much effort in to making sure the machine was working properly....rather than taking photos of it.

How does the time work out ? you were actually parked for 40 hours, so 2 are free, then £7 for 24 hrs …. that's 29p ish an hour... leaving 14 hours @ 29p to be covered by extra £5 you paid …. so you actually overpaid by 92p lol. ( Irrelevant I know as the term is £7 per 24 hours or part thereof, but it's the principle lol )

[BabyDriver]

I would....but hang on see what Ostell reckons.... it seems slightly obsessive to send 21 photos …. shame they couldn't put as much effort in to making sure the machine was working properly....rather than taking photos of it.

How does the time work out ? you were actually parked for 40 hours, so 2 are free, then £7 for 24 hrs …. that's 29p ish an hour... leaving 14 hours @ 29p to be covered by extra £5 you paid …. so you actually overpaid by 92p lol. ( Irrelevant I know as the term is £7 per 24 hours or part thereof, but it's the principle lol )

Thank you Amethyst. Got ticket 21 minutes after £7 worth of parking had expired. They made no allowance for the £5 extra paid. They are not claiming/evidencing we parked for 40 hours altogether just 24 hours and 21 minutes, it seems unreasonable to me to claim that £5 is not enough for 21 minutes of parking when their 24hr rate is £7.
Do you think Ostell will come back?

[BabyDriver]

...Why would their machines even print out at twelve pounds?? Surely it should give you £5 change if they only deal in increments of £7. They took the £5, and apparently I got nothing in consideration - isn't that theft?!

[BabyDriver]

Amethyst, Ostell has been unable to come back. Do you think this is okay?:

The claimant does not evidence who was driving the vehicle.

The parking costs were £7 per 24hrs. £12 was paid because the parking ticket machine did not accept the £14 inserted - it rejected one of the seven £2 coins inserted and printed out the ticket showing £12 had been paid. The parking is only sold in £7 increments yet no change was received, the machine accepted only £12 and printed out a receipt for £12. The fact that the equipment is capable of accepting and receipting anything other that increments of £7 evidences that there is a fault with their system. The parking charge notice was issued 21 minutes after £7 (24 hours) of parking had expired. No reasonable allowance was made by the car park company to accept that the additional £5 paid was enough to pay for 21 minutes of parking that cost £7 for up to 24 hours.

The claimant, in a photographic exhibit evidences that the defendant paid £12 in parking fees not £7.

The defendant’s party reported that the machine was faulty to staff at the terminal and were told that there was nothing they could do.

The defendant evidences by the metatag data on the photograph at Exhibit 1 that his party were concerned about the fault at the time of purchase and photographed the ticket to evidence the fault and the amount paid.

The defendant does not believe it is reasonable or proportionate to resort to the legal process for an arguable shortfall of £2 when their equipment was faulty and £5 was in fact paid and not accounted for. The defendant does not believe it is reasonable or proportionate to submit ever increasing invoices and claims for exorbitant amounts of interest and costs given it is the failure of their equipment and staffing that has inconvenienced both parties.

The defendant observes that many of the claimant’'s photographic exhibits were taken several hours before 16.54 at a time not relevant to this case.

The claimant's representative was repeatedly asked to provide evidence, they eventually sent their evidence out on 12th October 2018 (the cover letter was rather misleadingly dated 5th October 2018) leaving an unreasonably short time for the defendant to seek advice and file a defence by 19th October 2018.

[BabyDriver]

UPDATE!
The court have now admitted that they did not serve the claim!
An acknowledgement of service that never happened and a rushed defence has already been served.
I think this is shocking

[BabyDriver]

Are any of the previous posters still around?
There are further developments!

[des8]

Hi
Could you post up the further developments and a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (suitably redacted) that was sent through the post to the registered keeper?

[ostell]

So lets see that PCN

[BabyDriver]

Thank you both

[BabyDriver]

The update is they want to settle by us paying £200

[des8]

That is the reminder pcn...Can you please post up the original notice

[BabyDriver]

sorry thought it was the same...

[ostell]

ALL of the ORIGINAL PCN, the one you received first including the reverse. Dates are important.

Those pictures, by the wording, give the impression that they are not the first ones.

It may have been asked before, is this a hire car?

[BabyDriver]

I only have the copy of the PCN letter, the one in photo at #57. I do not have the original that was stuck to the car.
It was not a hire car.
Dates redacted: contravention 14/08/15, first letter (PCN) 23/09/15 which is pictured at #57 and the reverse is attached to this post.

[ostell]

OK they have a small section requried bu POFA on the back but overall I don't think it meets what is required.

Here's a link to POFA, look at paragraph 8 and see what is missing from the notice, it must all be there to hold the keeper liable, The Notice need to be delivered before day 56