[Help] Parking fine advice required

[Shropshire Seagull]

The second part if you pay the fine it doesn't show and therefore you do not need to declare it. This rubbish about answering the question if a CCJ has ever been put against your name is just that rubbish. If that was the case everyone would be constantly getting demands for money and being taken to court.

Too many are frightened of their own shadow.

Incorrect - you'll only get a CCJ against your name if someone takes you to court and the judge finds in their favour [you loose].
You don't get a CCJ if you successfully defend the claim - aka you win, so no there's no judgement against you.

The only bit that gets frightening is if you loose the case and then don't pay - then the Bailiffs come knocking

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I’m presuming that the first part of what you have written is not from the Gov website (judgment spelt wrong and plaintiff) which raises the question where did you get the info from? Furthermore, the Gov website clearly refers to where a Defendant does not reply not where a hearing takes place.

Personal experience mate.
I had need to raise a County Court claim a few years back and the clerk explained the full process, from raising the summons all the way through to Bailiff action, including the possible outcomes at each stage.
If the Defendant does not reply to a summons, then it proceeds to a court hearing, if the Defendant does not attend the Court hearing, the Judge will [may] award "in absentia" - it is at this point that the Defendant will get a CCJ against their name.

Hope this clarifies - sorry about the spelling mistakes

 

[Bedsex]

Whatever you get paid, work it out as an hourly rate and apply it to the time you spend, and have spent, dealing with this. If that "cost" outweighs the fine, pay the fine. Life's too short IMHO.

I’m in between jobs at the moment, after having been made redundant in November last year. Therefore, if I do decide to continue to fight this, I guess it will be on a pro bono basis!

I’ve still not decided what to do yet, paying up would only be a couple of hundred quid, but there’s still a part of me that thinks it’s just not equitable.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Incorrect - you'll only get a CCJ against your name if someone takes you to court and the judge finds in their favour [you loose].
You don't get a CCJ if you successfully defend the claim - aka you win, so no there's no judgement against you.

The only bit that gets frightening is if you loose the case and then don't pay - then the Bailiffs come knocking

That's what I said.

The issue is people get scared of getting a CCJ but if you prepare yourself that you may lose and will be expected to pay and happy to do so within 30 days then all good. There's been far to much rubbish written about CCJ's.

A judge once said to me always turn up even if you believe you have little chance. There's so many technicalities that the judge will know and judge in your favour. Also happened to me I turned up and the company taking me to court failed to turn up. They put in for set aside and next time did appear, the judge still found in my favour as I was proved their information was wrong, the young solicitor got stroppy and the judge after awarding me huge costs chucked him out of his chambers.

I'm yet to lose a case for or against. I enjoy it.

 

[Rookie]

Personal experience mate.
I had need to raise a County Court claim a few years back and the clerk explained the full process, from raising the summons all the way through to Bailiff action, including the possible outcomes at each stage.
If the Defendant does not reply to a summons, then it proceeds to a court hearing, if the Defendant does not attend the Court hearing, the Judge will [may] award "in absentia" - it is at this point that the Defendant will get a CCJ against their name.

Hope this clarifies - sorry about the spelling mistakes

Without wishing to get bogged down in the process that is slightly incorrect (not sure long ago you issued your claim).

Claim issued - if no defence is served judgment will awarded in favour of the claimant. CCJ will registered if payment is not made within 30 days. Depending on the value and how the claim was issued a judge may not even see the claim.
If a defence is received then a hearing will take place. If successful in defending then that’s the end of the matter. If unsuccessful then judgment will be made. Again, time to pay before that judgment is registered.

Without that time to pay the whole system would collapse as it would be pointless defending any claim because of the risk of a instant CCJ. Time is given to pay at all stages before the judgment is registered and has an affect on credit records.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Personal experience mate.
I had need to raise a County Court claim a few years back and the clerk explained the full process, from raising the summons all the way through to Bailiff action, including the possible outcomes at each stage.
If the Defendant does not reply to a summons, then it proceeds to a court hearing, if the Defendant does not attend the Court hearing, the Judge will [may] award "in absentia" - it is at this point that the Defendant will get a CCJ against their name.

Hope this clarifies - sorry about the spelling mistakes

With most CCJ cases there is no court hearing.

 

[LadySeagull]

Pay it. You really don't want a CCJ against her name.

It doesn't work like that! You don't risk a CCJ if you defend a claim, even if you lose (as long as you then paid, and it would likely be less than the claim because the added £60 'recovery/costs' is imaginary and was never expended by Britannia). There are other defence points.

MSE forum has a template defence. I wrote it and it covers what the Defendant needs and leaves just ONE paragraph to be edited, to add the facts of the car park and what happened,. It seems very relevant that the payment after the OP's wife's showed as 50p over, and hers shows as 50p under. My argument would be that the evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant put in the right money but 50p got stuck, unbeknown to her, and then was dislodged by the next coins put in by the next payer.

Who is the Defendant, the OP's wife? She CAN do this, it's a phone call and might not even go that far. But she must defend it. If it proceeds to a hearing and isn't discontinued first, as plenty are when they see a decent witness statement, it'll almost certainly be a phone hearing, over in an hour or less.

Why would anyone pay £270-odd to make it go away when they can win and pay nothing, and risk no CCJ, and even if they lose, the falsely enhanced £60 'costs' will likely be disallowed?

Incorrect - you'll only get a CCJ against your name if someone takes you to court and the judge finds in their favour [you loose].
You don't get a CCJ if you successfully defend the claim - aka you win, so no there's no judgement against you.

It's even better than that. You don't get a CCJ even if you lose, because if you pay within 30 days there isn't even a stain on your credit rating, no CCJ, not a satisfied one - NOTHING.

This is why on MSE, everyone defends, because there is no CCJ risk and 99% of reported outcomes are WINS or discontinuances by the scam firms when they see they are unlikely to win it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It doesn't work like that! You don't risk a CCJ if you defend a claim, even if you lose (as long as you then paid, and it would likely be less than the claim because the added £60 'recovery/costs' is imaginary and was never expended by Britannia). There are other defence points.

MSE forum has a template defence. I wrote it and it covers what the Defendant needs and leaves just ONE paragraph to be edited, to add the facts of the car park and what happened,. It seems very relevant that the payment after the OP's wife's showed as 50p over, and hers shows as 50p under. My argument would be that the evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant put in the right money but 50p got stuck, unbeknown to her, and then was dislodged by the next coins put in by the next payer.

Who is the Defendant, the OP's wife? She CAN do this, it's a phone call and might not even go that far. But she must defend it. If it proceeds to a hearing and isn't discontinued first, as plenty are when they see a decent witness statement, it'll almost certainly be a phone hearing, over in an hour or less.

Why would anyone pay £270-odd to make it go away when they can win and pay nothing, and risk no CCJ, and even if they lose, the falsely enhanced £60 'costs' will likely be disallowed?




It's even better than that. You don't get a CCJ even if you lose, because if you pay within 30 days there isn't even a stain on your credit rating, no CCJ, not a satisfied one - NOTHING.

This is why on MSE, everyone defends, because there is no CCJ risk and 99% of reported outcomes are WINS or discontinuances by the scam firms when they see they are unlikely to win it.

Well done, again. Some bafflingly defeatist posts on this thread. I thought it was the French who are the cheese-eating surrender monkeys

 

[LadySeagull]

Come the glorious day (this year, I guess) when the 2019 Act* is fully enacted with the new statutory Code of Practice for this industry, and a single, independent appeals service will finally be run (hopefully) by legally trained, fair-minded and clever people, a lot of the rogue parking firms will disappear.


* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/section/2/enacted




Here is what the unanimous voices of MPs had to say about this industry, and none of them said people should pay!


https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

It doesn't work like that! You don't risk a CCJ if you defend a claim, even if you lose (as long as you then paid, and it would likely be less than the claim because the added £60 'recovery/costs' is imaginary and was never expended by Britannia). There are other defence points.

MSE forum has a template defence. I wrote it and it covers what the Defendant needs and leaves just ONE paragraph to be edited, to add the facts of the car park and what happened,. It seems very relevant that the payment after the OP's wife's showed as 50p over, and hers shows as 50p under. My argument would be that the evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant put in the right money but 50p got stuck, unbeknown to her, and then was dislodged by the next coins put in by the next payer.

Who is the Defendant, the OP's wife? She CAN do this, it's a phone call and might not even go that far. But she must defend it. If it proceeds to a hearing and isn't discontinued first, as plenty are when they see a decent witness statement, it'll almost certainly be a phone hearing, over in an hour or less.

Why would anyone pay £270-odd to make it go away when they can win and pay nothing, and risk no CCJ, and even if they lose, the falsely enhanced £60 'costs' will likely be disallowed?




It's even better than that. You don't get a CCJ even if you lose, because if you pay within 30 days there isn't even a stain on your credit rating, no CCJ, not a satisfied one - NOTHING.

This is why on MSE, everyone defends, because there is no CCJ risk and 99% of reported outcomes are WINS or discontinuances by the scam firms when they see they are unlikely to win it.

Thanks for the explanation, good work. [emoji106]

I’ve (touch wood) not had one so not had to look into it in that much detail and as a mortgage broker I’m just very nervous of CCJ’s and the damage they can do!

 

[Bedsex]

It doesn't work like that! You don't risk a CCJ if you defend a claim, even if you lose (as long as you then paid, and it would likely be less than the claim because the added £60 'recovery/costs' is imaginary and was never expended by Britannia). There are other defence points.

MSE forum has a template defence. I wrote it and it covers what the Defendant needs and leaves just ONE paragraph to be edited, to add the facts of the car park and what happened,. It seems very relevant that the payment after the OP's wife's showed as 50p over, and hers shows as 50p under. My argument would be that the evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant put in the right money but 50p got stuck, unbeknown to her, and then was dislodged by the next coins put in by the next payer.

Who is the Defendant, the OP's wife? She CAN do this, it's a phone call and might not even go that far. But she must defend it. If it proceeds to a hearing and isn't discontinued first, as plenty are when they see a decent witness statement, it'll almost certainly be a phone hearing, over in an hour or less.

Why would anyone pay £270-odd to make it go away when they can win and pay nothing, and risk no CCJ, and even if they lose, the falsely enhanced £60 'costs' will likely be disallowed?




It's even better than that. You don't get a CCJ even if you lose, because if you pay within 30 days there isn't even a stain on your credit rating, no CCJ, not a satisfied one - NOTHING.

This is why on MSE, everyone defends, because there is no CCJ risk and 99% of reported outcomes are WINS or discontinuances by the scam firms when they see they are unlikely to win it.

Thanks LadySeagull, that is certainly sound advice. I’ve already mooted my wife’s situation on the PePiPoo forum and the consensus of advice on there was the same. Therefore, today my wife has submitted an acknowledgment of service, stating that she intends to defend all of the claim. I will now help her put together the defence documentation, which will include the assertion that my wife had no reason to believe that she hadn’t paid £3.50 in full, as it was very clear from the signs in the car park that the tariff for the full day was £3.50 and she clearly intended staying beyond 3 hours (she was actually parked for 5 hours). She is certain that she put £3.50 into the machine, no coins came out, so she pressed the button and had no reason to check what was printed on the ticket. I can then hypothesise that the 50p piece she put in somehow got stuck in the machine, this would seem like a reasonable assumption on the basis that the next customer paid £4 - suggesting that they also put £3.50 in, but their coins dislodged my wife’s stuck 50p, as can be seen from the data for the machines, kindly provided by Britannia (see attached). The case for the defence rests m’lud!

One other point was raised on the PePiPoo forum - that if the case did go to a county court hearing, I could present my wife’s case as an unpaid lay representative and as such she would only need to answer questions directed at her, such as “did you really believe you put £3.50 in the parking machine?”. She said she would be much more comfortable if we were able to do this. I’m actually hoping that with my watertight defence file it won’t get as far as that....I’ll keep you all posted

 

[LadySeagull]

Yes you can be a lay rep. It is your wife's right, as long as she attends as well because you are not a solicitor so you only have 'rights of audience' if the Defendant is with you. This is different from being a McKenzie friend, who helps a Defendant organise their paperwork and sits with them but says nothing.


Some courts (including Brighton) get muddled up, so be clear when she sends the phone numbers across to the court in the end, that she is giving your number as well as hers because you are her 'lay representative' under this Act:


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made


I act as unpaid lay rep for people when I can in these cases and have done successfully since 2019 but less so this year, because I have other work & family commitments.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Thanks LadySeagull, that is certainly sound advice. I’ve already mooted my wife’s situation on the PePiPoo forum and the consensus of advice on there was the same. Therefore, today my wife has submitted an acknowledgment of service, stating that she intends to defend all of the claim. I will now help her put together the defence documentation, which will include the assertion that my wife had no reason to believe that she hadn’t paid £3.50 in full, as it was very clear from the signs in the car park that the tariff for the full day was £3.50 and she clearly intended staying beyond 3 hours (she was actually parked for 5 hours). She is certain that she put £3.50 into the machine, no coins came out, so she pressed the button and had no reason to check what was printed on the ticket. I can then hypothesise that the 50p piece she put in somehow got stuck in the machine, this would seem like a reasonable assumption on the basis that the next customer paid £4 - suggesting that they also put £3.50 in, but their coins dislodged my wife’s stuck 50p, as can be seen from the data for the machines, kindly provided by Britannia (see attached). The case for the defence rests m’lud!

One other point was raised on the PePiPoo forum - that if the case did go to a county court hearing, I could present my wife’s case as an unpaid lay representative and as such she would only need to answer questions directed at her, such as “did you really believe you put £3.50 in the parking machine?”. She said she would be much more comfortable if we were able to do this. I’m actually hoping that with my watertight defence file it won’t get as far as that....I’ll keep you all posted

I wish you good luck with the defence.

With deference to [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION]’s extensive experience in these matters compared to my non-existent experience, I do wonder whether the data you provide in the print out does show that your wife did insert £3.50 on the balance of probabilities.

11 minutes and 5 transactions after your wife’s transaction there is another £4 from the same machine, with no similar preceding under-payment.

Would not a reasonable counter argument be: “sometimes people don’t have a 50p piece (or other loose change totalling 50p). Rather than search for change, they choose to over-pay by 50p, as evidenced by the transaction at 10:13. We submit that the defendant chose to under pay by 50p rather than over pay by 50p. The immediately following £4 transaction is not evidence she paid £3.50; it’s simply evidence that two people chose to over pay by 50p within 10 minutes. We note that the immediately preceding transaction to the 10:13 £4 payment in that machine was £3.50, providing evidence that the machine was fully capable of accepting and processing 50p pieces. We submit that the data demonstrates no such balance of probability as the defendant claims.” If they could also provide evidence about the frequency that coins get stuck in machines (providing its low, of course - and the insufficiently long list you provide reveals no other potential example) together with the frequency with which people choose to over pay (and your list reveals two such cases [I would argue if I were representing the company]), then their case would be strengthened.

Please note: I am not accusing your wife of under paying. I’m simply presenting an alternative interpretation of the data you have provided.

Of course, it’s perfectly possible that the judge would be sick and tired of these companies coming to Court and would also be mindful of the impending Act coming into force, and would thus find for your wife in any event - but these are not evidential matters.

Good luck - I’m curious how the case turns out.

 

[smeariestbat]

I have a deep interest in this thread and expect regular updates henceforth

 

[Bedsex]

I wish you good luck with the defence.

With deference to [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION]’s extensive experience in these matters compared to my non-existent experience, I do wonder whether the data you provide in the print out does show that your wife did insert £3.50 on the balance of probabilities.

11 minutes and 5 transactions after your wife’s transaction there is another £4 from the same machine, with no similar preceding under-payment.

Would not a reasonable counter argument be: “sometimes people don’t have a 50p piece (or other loose change totalling 50p). Rather than search for change, they choose to over-pay by 50p, as evidenced by the transaction at 10:13. We submit that the defendant chose to under pay by 50p rather than over pay by 50p. The immediately following £4 transaction is not evidence she paid £3.50; it’s simply evidence that two people chose to over pay by 50p within 10 minutes. We note that the immediately preceding transaction to the 10:13 £4 payment in that machine was £3.50, providing evidence that the machine was fully capable of accepting and processing 50p pieces. We submit that the data demonstrates no such balance of probability as the defendant claims.” If they could also provide evidence about the frequency that coins get stuck in machines (providing its low, of course - and the insufficiently long list you provide reveals no other potential example) together with the frequency with which people choose to over pay (and your list reveals two such cases [I would argue if I were representing the company]), then their case would be strengthened.

Please note: I am not accusing your wife of under paying. I’m simply presenting an alternative interpretation of the data you have provided.

Of course, it’s perfectly possible that the judge would be sick and tired of these companies coming to Court and would also be mindful of the impending Act coming into force, and would thus find for your wife in any event - but these are not evidential matters.

Good luck - I’m curious how the case turns out.

It’s a good counter argument and of course it is possible that my wife did only put £3 in. But as has been stated above, the outcome will be based on the balance of probabilities. Where it is very clear that the tariff is £3.50 for all day parking and £1.20 for 3 hours, would a reasonable person pay £3.00 and stay for 5 hours? My wife is adamant that she put £3.50 in, why would she choose to only put £3.00 in?

 

[Goldstone1976]

It’s a good counter argument and of course it is possible that my wife did only put £3 in. But as has been stated above, the outcome will be based on the balance of probabilities. Where it is very clear that the tariff is £3.50 for all day parking and £1.20 for 3 hours, would a reasonable person pay £3.00 and stay for 5 hours? My wife is adamant that she put £3.50 in, why would she choose to only put £3.00 in?

Your first question is pertinent (I’d missed that bit about the two different charges - apologies), why indeed would she? I find that persuasive. The second question less so (purely from the perspective of a counter argument): she is saying now that she put £3.50 in as a way of getting out of paying the extra charge/penalty.

The first question alone (plus your initial comments about the coin getting stuck etc) is enough to persuade me that you should win on the balance of probabilities.

Good luck!

 

[Swansman]

Just pay up bro, make it easy for yourself

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I wish you good luck with the defence.

With deference to [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION]’s extensive experience in these matters compared to my non-existent experience, I do wonder whether the data you provide in the print out does show that your wife did insert £3.50 on the balance of probabilities.

11 minutes and 5 transactions after your wife’s transaction there is another £4 from the same machine, with no similar preceding under-payment.

Would not a reasonable counter argument be: “sometimes people don’t have a 50p piece (or other loose change totalling 50p). Rather than search for change, they choose to over-pay by 50p, as evidenced by the transaction at 10:13. We submit that the defendant chose to under pay by 50p rather than over pay by 50p. The immediately following £4 transaction is not evidence she paid £3.50; it’s simply evidence that two people chose to over pay by 50p within 10 minutes. We note that the immediately preceding transaction to the 10:13 £4 payment in that machine was £3.50, providing evidence that the machine was fully capable of accepting and processing 50p pieces. We submit that the data demonstrates no such balance of probability as the defendant claims.” If they could also provide evidence about the frequency that coins get stuck in machines (providing its low, of course - and the insufficiently long list you provide reveals no other potential example) together with the frequency with which people choose to over pay (and your list reveals two such cases [I would argue if I were representing the company]), then their case would be strengthened.

Please note: I am not accusing your wife of under paying. I’m simply presenting an alternative interpretation of the data you have provided.

Of course, it’s perfectly possible that the judge would be sick and tired of these companies coming to Court and would also be mindful of the impending Act coming into force, and would thus find for your wife in any event - but these are not evidential matters.

Good luck - I’m curious how the case turns out.

Your last point is very valid and the judge may well consider it a waste of court time taking someone to court in a dispute over 50p !

 

[smeariestbat]

It’s a good counter argument and of course it is possible that my wife did only put £3 in. But as has been stated above, the outcome will be based on the balance of probabilities. Where it is very clear that the tariff is £3.50 for all day parking and £1.20 for 3 hours, would a reasonable person pay £3.00 and stay for 5 hours? My wife is adamant that she put £3.50 in, why would she choose to only put £3.00 in?

This i think is your strongest point. With the different tarrifs, what reasonable person would pay over twice the amount. Is it worth noting that £3 for 5 hours is still more than the price for 2 x 3 hours which would only come to £2.40.

 

[LadySeagull]

Just pay up bro, make it easy for yourself

No-one here is that stupid and more and more people are becoming aware that these are not fines and that there is no risk but they should not ignore them.


People wouldn't part with around £270 because they get a civil county court claim from a local parking firm (considered by many to be a pariah - just look at the Argus reports about the Peacehaven Co-op they were removed from, and the ongoing confetti-like throwing of PCNs around at Stanmer Park!). This has to stop.

The Defendant will be the only true witness at the telephone hearing so her version of events will be compelling evidence in itself.


This sort of claim will, in the end, become very rare as people get used to the new Single Appeals Service and if it is good, I will certainly be recommending that rogue PPCs are quashed by using that Service. Hopefully it will be available to people right up until court claim issue. At the moment, people are sent ludicrous demands and are told ''tough, it's too late to appeal now''.

Apart from anything else, the stated intention of the new framework and Appeals Service is that patterns of PCN reasons/locations will be identified and rogue PPCs will soon be outed if they keep having 'problems' with their old Pay & Display machines at certain sites, for example.