Author Topic: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)  (Read 1973 times)

jfollows and 83 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
« Reply #15 on: »
Stop paraphrasing key documents.

Please POST UP what you have back from the Court.

What you have suggested regarding the Judge's comments would be very strange.

Once we see what the Judge has written then we can advise.

Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
« Reply #16 on: »
I've attached screenshots of the actual order so you can see exactly what the Judge has written (both pages). For context, the defence referred to in paragraph (1) was my original handwritten one. Grateful for any advice once you've had a look. Thanks


https://imgpile.com/p/61Efhum

Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
« Reply #17 on: »
Okay.

This is a harsh sanction.

We will need to examine this in some detail.

Your defence remains valid in terms of the 'minor keying error' meaning; that the parking operator should have cancelled the ticket.

Can you please demonstrate the keying error for use?

Imagine your VRM is "AB65 CDE"

What did you actually type into the machine based on the above VRM?

Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
« Reply #18 on: »
Instead of typing YT65 CDE
I typed: LT65 CDE

Quick question - when you appealed to ECP, did they request further information from you in terms of establishing the registration which was entered?

I'm asking this after reviewing Code of Practice Version 1 (27th June 2024) Annex F which states;

In all cases the Appeals Charter would require the motorist to provide the evidence.

Where the operator is not satisfied with the evidence, they should request further evidence from a motorist when it becomes clear they are claiming to meet the criteria.

Where a motorist engages and provides acceptable evidence, they will be dealt with in accordance with the
Appeals Charter.



It's our experience that certain parking operators will do all the can to 'avoid' finding orphaned payments on their systems.

We see it time and time again where the reply to appeals stating, "We cannot find a payment on our system matching your VRM", even when the appellant has asked that the orphaned payment record be examined.


Also, why did this end up being a paper hearing?
« Last Edit: Today at 07:26:24 am by InterCity125 »

This is a harsh sanction.
It's one of the main problems with the 'vague particulars' defence, in my personal view. The judge isn't wrong to say that it doesn't deal with all of the allegations in the claim, and any claims that the defendant fails to deal with can be considered to be admitted...