PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Defence proofread - submission date 27th Dec!
MerryChristmas
post Tue, 25 Dec 2018 - 11:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



Hello, Merry Christmas all!

I am very sorry to spring this onto you all, is anyone available to read my defence before this needs to be submitted on 27th Dec. I have filed an AOS already.

Case background

I have received a court claim on 22nd Nov, regarding 6 PCN's. The driver was had parked on the staff bays repeatedly (I am sure there are more than these 6 PCN's that were issued). Correspondence regarding PCN's were all ignored following advice that the company cannot sue as the land is private property. (Stupid I know, to not appeal, or action)

POC:
Claim for the monies outstanding from the Defendant to the sum of £XXX.00, in relation to unpaid parking charge notices issued for parking on private land at ___________ University. Signage clearly displayed throughout the car park sets out the terms and conditions of parking that had been breached by the defendant. Notice under protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been given under Schedule 4 making the defendant liable. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant has failed to pay the parking charges. The defendant will be provided with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim.

Separate Detailed Particulars:
jumpshare.com/v/28u68iZMm3MdHXYWJBHT
jumpshare.com/v/aI2bcx2re14uVqymBaJN
jumpshare.com/v/nHjl39ZeWByHq8crev3A?b=ySf4TpVHvcPjdva0YvNz

Sign:
i64.tinypic.com/24o4nfa.jpg


Defence


Date

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXX (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the first five material dates in a marked bay allocated to Staff at University XXXXXX.

3. The Defendant was not parked on the sixth material date at XXX on 25/01/2017 at XXXXXXXXX, as the defendant had only started parking at said car park, when working at the premises of XXXXXX in August 2017 with a valid display permit. The claimant is put to strict proof that the defendant had parked in a reserved bay for XXX visitors only, as the defendant had a valid parking permit for alternative bays in the same car park.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the contraventions listed in the particulars of the claim are not concise and have repetitive dates.

5. It is accepted that the Defendant entered into contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £75. The claim includes an additional £85, for which an explanation of debt collection fees was given, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8.No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Comments & Questions
Will it be weak to my case to admit the allegation of parking at the site?

Are there any points that I can use against their T's & C's of their signs to argue that the contract is not legally binding?

I have received the following advice - "If it's permit parking then your defence is as you do not have one then there is no offer to park which breaks the contractual chain as you cannot accept the terms and conditions as you do not have a permit, only permit holders can be bound by the terms on the signage, get some photos of the signs too to back yourself up". Is it true?

Many thanks for your help!!!!!

This post has been edited by MerryChristmas: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 15:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 25 Dec 2018 - 11:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 25 Dec 2018 - 12:23
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



There may be an argument of forbidding signs.

But you appear to have PoFA a little muddled - If they have complied then the keeper is liable for the driver's unpaid parking charge. (If that is due itself)

But defence point #5 seems to admit driving and accepting the contract?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 25 Dec 2018 - 12:25
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you have admitted to being the driver and hence there is no protection under POFA for the additional costs incurred. Why not read some of the other defences on here to get a better idea. The driver parked, you are the keeper. Keep it that way. Can they identify the driver?

Post up the PCNs received for a quick comment.

The claimant has admitted (in 3) that they do not know the identity of the driver and are just guessing can only claim from the keeper if they have complied with POFA. Ask the court to throw out the claim as they are just guessing at who they can claim against.

The signs are offering parking to "Staff Permit Holders Only" There is therefore no offer of a contract to park to those who do not hold a staff permit and therefore without a contract there can be no breach. Probably the same for Visitor parking. Cases have been won on this point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 25 Dec 2018 - 16:36
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Point 5? If its staff only no contract was offered.

Have you pictures of the signs available your links don't work for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MerryChristmas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 12:46
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



Picture of sign:
Attached Image


Would there be an argument of forbidding signs? I have amended point 5 to deny the contract.

Is there somewhere where I can access example defences on this forum? Or, can I only use the search bar?

Unfortunately, the only PCN I have is a pic recovered from my mum's phone:

Attached Image




This post has been edited by MerryChristmas: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 12:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 13:25
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



The sign is a forbidding one.

Caveat that the image is very grainy, the NtK doesn't seem to meet Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirements for keeper liability for the following reasons:

1. It does not contain the formal warning wording required in Schedule 4 of PoFA, paras 8 or 9.

2. Date of parking event - 25/01/17, date of NtK 20/02/17. If this was an ANPR camera capture, the NtK is served too late for Keeper Liability. If it was a windscreen ticket, the NtK was served too early. You need to do a check with the DVLA as to when your data was requested.

You should email the DVLA and ask which organisations (and for what reason) accessed the registered keeper's data from them between a range of dates which includes the date(s) of the parking incident(s). You need to provide the registered keeper's full name and address, the address on the V5C logbook and the Vehicle Registration Mark of the vehicle involved in the parking incident.

SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk

Even though you email your request, the DVLA will respond via Royal Mail.

If you think that multiple tickets are lined up, make sure your 'from/to' dates are wide enough to capture all potential parking 'contraventions'.

This post has been edited by Umkomaas: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 13:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 13:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



It is to your advantage not to identify the driver. Have you done so, yes or no.

The PCN does not conform to the requirements of POFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. Here's POFA Look at paragraph 8, assuming there was a windscreen ticket. They say they are relying on POFA to hold the keeper liable. To my mind 8 (2) (e), (f) & (i) are not there therefore no keeper liability.

The PCN is stating that the breach was for not purchasing the appropriate time or staying too long (about third paragraph). This is nonsense if there was no means to pay.

Here's a bit about forbidding signs:
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MerryChristmas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 15:12
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



Thank you for your replies. I had not disclosed who the driver was, but only when writing examples of my defence on here and at MSE.

I have now sent an email to DVLA, and they will get back with info in 30 days.

@ostell "To my mind 8 (2) (e), (f) & (i) are not there therefore no keeper liability."

I think they covered (e) and (f) in the 4th, 5th and 6th paragraphs? (sorry the picture is really blurry)

My updated defence is as follows:

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXXXX (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration XXXX.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the contraventions listed in the particulars of the claim are not concise and have repetitive dates.

4.‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

5. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £75. The claim includes an additional £85, for which an explanation of debt collection fees was given, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8.No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

This post has been edited by MerryChristmas: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 23:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:21
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



What time did the driver park there? To me those signs indicate that staff only during the day and well it could be anyone outside that....

Dont identify the driver as others have said, point 5 from the reworked defence is much better

This post has been edited by bearclaw: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:56
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (MerryChristmas @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 15:12) *
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the contraventions listed in the particulars of the claim are not concise and have repetitive dates.


Have they failed to identify a cause of action? The cause of action seems to be breach of contract or debt. What you seem to be saying is that they've not identified that the defendant is one of the RK or driver but there's nothing wrong with pleading those in the alternative. I don't agree with this paragraph.

QUOTE
4.‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.


You ought to set out exactly how PoFA was not complied with. The obligation on all parties is to identify and narrow the issues in dispute and each party is entitled to know the case it has to meet.

QUOTE
5. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.


Don't cite case law, particularly from the County Court, in a defence.

QUOTE
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


What's "strict" proof? If I was going to include this I would word it something like "The Defendant has no knowledge of the Claimant's standing to pursue this claim on behalf of the occupier of the premises in question. The Defendant requires the Claimant to prove that they have the necessary standing."

QUOTE
7. It is not believedThe Defendant avers that the Claimant has incurred did not incur additional costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £75. The claim includes an additional £85, for which an explanation of debt collection fees was given, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery.


QUOTE
8.No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.


No need for this paragraph at all. If you're saying that you weren't the driver then say so. If you were the driver but simply don't want to admit it then you're on thin ice because you'll have to admit it in court if asked.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MerryChristmas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:26
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:56) *
QUOTE (MerryChristmas @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 15:12) *
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the contraventions listed in the particulars of the claim are not concise and have repetitive dates.


Have they failed to identify a cause of action? The cause of action seems to be breach of contract or debt. What you seem to be saying is that they've not identified that the defendant is one of the RK or driver but there's nothing wrong with pleading those in the alternative. I don't agree with this paragraph.

Will it be best to remove this paragraph?

QUOTE
8.No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.


No need for this paragraph at all. If you're saying that you weren't the driver then say so. If you were the driver but simply don't want to admit it then you're on thin ice because you'll have to admit it in court if asked.


Do you mean that there'll be a high chance of losing this case if I was the driver? Or if I include this point?

This post has been edited by MerryChristmas: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 19:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:47
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



By reading a lot of other cases on here, you would realise that PoFA is used by the PPCs to transfer liability to the RK. In order to do so, they must comply with the strict requirements of PoFA, which they very rarely do.

Given their inability to comply with PoFA, the only person they can chase is the driver. If they don't know the identity of the driver, they are dead. There is no obligation to name the driver unless asked the direct question in court.

You appear to have picked up a lot of technical ideas without understanding them.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 20:06
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (MerryChristmas @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:26) *
Will it be best to remove this paragraph?

That’s up to you but I don’t think it’s accurate.

QUOTE
Do you mean that there'll be a high chance of losing this case if I was the driver? Or if I include this point?

No. I mean that there seems little point in dancing around an issue in the case in a manner that will be obvious to the court if you’re simply going to have to concede the point if asked. It makes you look evasive and undermines your credibility (which usually matters).

If you weren’t the driver then simply deny being the driver and say why you can show you weren’t. If you were the driver then either say nothing about it or admit it. However, if it got as far as court the first thing I’d do is ask you under oath whether you were driving - a question you’d have to answer.

If your case rests solely on them not being able to prove that you were the driver then it’s a pretty weak case.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 21:24
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,825
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE
Have they failed to identify a cause of action? The cause of action seems to be breach of contract or debt.


Well at best they are confused. How can there be a contract for parking in a reserved bay without being authorised ?

If there is indeed a contract, then they are duty bound to serve at a minimum, the relevant terms.

QUOTE
7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and

(2) any general conditions of sale incorporated in the contract should also be attached (but where the contract is or the documents constituting the agreement are bulky this practice direction is complied with by attaching or serving only the relevant parts of the contract or documents).


This is required as per

QUOTE
5.2A The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction.






QUOTE
7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.


Go after the driver or the registered keeper. By going after both who may or may not be the same, they clearly haven't reviewed the case and set it out very well.


It's all very well trying to take the correct procedural path and holding up to a superior standard than the "professional" opposition but at the same time you can't just roll over and let them away with blatant disregard for rules which they should be well aware off but can't be bothered to follow because it's too expensive. How else does a novice introduce this matter to the court ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MerryChristmas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 21:43
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:56) *
4.‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’

You ought to set out exactly how PoFA was not complied with. The obligation on all parties is to identify and narrow the issues in dispute and each party is entitled to know the case it has to meet.


Can I confirm that setting out exactly how PoFA was not complied with = detailing which paras and sub-paras are not compliant? I've only found one point of non-compliance after going through both paras 8 and 9 of PoFA, though I'm not sure if I'm just being an amateur...

Para. 8 (2)© where they did not state that a notice to driver had been given.

Points previously thought to be non-compliant and have found to be compliant:
  • The NTK was sent within the relevant period on 28/02/2017 (34 days) and not 20/02/2017
  • 8 (2)(e),(f), and (i) are all addressed in paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the NTK.


Will it be a bit weak to only have one point to claim that they are non-compliant with PoFA?

I've also updated Point 3 to cut down the Cause of Action, however want to keep the point that their POC's are not concise due to two dates listed into one contravention:

Contraventions listed in the Particulars of Claim are not concise and have repetitive dates, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, para 7.5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 21:59
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (henrik777 @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 21:24) *
QUOTE
Have they failed to identify a cause of action? The cause of action seems to be breach of contract or debt.


Well at best they are confused. How can there be a contract for parking in a reserved bay without being authorised ?



It's all very well trying to take the correct procedural path and holding up to a superior standard than the "professional" opposition but at the same time you can't just roll over and let them away with blatant disregard for rules which they should be well aware off but can't be bothered to follow because it's too expensive. How else does a novice introduce this matter to the court ?


If there truly is no cause of action (leaving aside that what was originally written pointed to the identification of the defendant rather than a cause of action) then the correct course is to apply to strike out the claim, not raise it in the defence and... what? Unless the objective is to get a strike out without paying an application fee, which would be an abuse of process.

People seem confused as to what a defence is. It's not a written argument and nor is it a place for point scoring. If you want to mention non-compliance with the CPR then do so in oral submissions to the court.

QUOTE (MerryChristmas @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 21:43) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:56) *
4.‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’


You ought to set out exactly how PoFA was not complied with. The obligation on all parties is to identify and narrow the issues in dispute and each party is entitled to know the case it has to meet.


QUOTE
Can I confirm that setting out exactly how PoFA was not complied with


Bullet point works fine.

QUOTE
I've also updated Point 3 to cut down the Cause of Action, however want to keep the point that their POC's are not concise due to two dates listed into one contravention:

Contraventions listed in the Particulars of Claim are not concise and have repetitive dates, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, para 7.5.


Feel free to mention that in oral submissions to the court but it's not a defence point.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 22:06
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



No it's not compliant. They have not invited the payment or the identity of the driver. It is an attempt but not correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MerryChristmas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 22:42
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 22:06) *
No it's not compliant. They have not invited the payment or the identity of the driver. It is an attempt but not correct.


Oh, I thought the big letters of "PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT DUE" would count as an invitation? Is it because the attempt is written so informally, as with the "please tell us who was driving"?

So then it does offend the following?:

©state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), © and (f);

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Seeing as I misunderstood this, does this PCN break (f) and (i) too?:

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (2nd from last paragraph)
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). - I thought this would be covered by "Date Issued" in top right corner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 22:58
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Issue date is not necessarily the date of posting. There can be several days difference. Date of sending is required
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MerryChristmas
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 23:22
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 25 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,587



Thank you for clarifying.

Here is my updated defence:

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXX(Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration XXXX.

3.‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording in paras. 8 (2)©, (e), (f) and (i). Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

4. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship.

5. The Defendant has no knowledge of the Claimant's standing to pursue this claim on behalf of the occupier of the premises in question. The Defendant requires the Claimant to prove that they have the necessary standing.

6. The Defendant avers that the Claimant did not incur additional costs and they are put to proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:37
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here