PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

County Court Claim Lagoon Road PCN
phillyb
post Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 14:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



County Court Claim Lagoon Road PCN

Hello,

I received this in the post yesterday. I was not the driver at the time and wrote a letter of appeal. The appeal was rejected.

[attachment=74589:Screensh...14.06.16.png]

The evidence they provided were 3 image - using a hand held camera - there is a time stand on them but with a matter of seconds taken in between each image.

Is it worth taking the case to court?



--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 14:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
freddy1
post Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 14:54
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,337
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



they HAVE taken you to court , or at least they have started the procedure

you need to respond to defend yourself , or not and pay up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phillyb
post Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 15:29
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



Hi,

If I were to defend myself is it advised to get legal representation? I have appealed previous tickets and had them over turned through research and educating myself.
In these cases are they normally argued without external help. Also would there be other legal charges from the other side, on-top of what has been stated?

Thanks


--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 15:52
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,337
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



you haver got passed the appeal stage , you have a live court claim in front of you , its a county court , so even if you hire the best lawyer going , you will not get costs back

you must acnolage the claim in order to get more tine to work out defence

you will have a lot of reading , a lot of letter writing and a long wait

read this , you are at post 2 stage https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...thankyou#latest

within that post it suggests you read and digest vthis info regarding form filling https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/m...wledge.pdf?dl=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 16:47
Post #5


Member


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



A knowledge the claim online using the details and password on the form. Do this on or just after day 5. This gives you 33 days from date of issue to get your defence to the court.

Post up a redacted copy of the PCN but leave dates

Have a read of this about the extra £60: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G...kinson.pdf?dl=0

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phillyb
post Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 09:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



Thanks for this information, very helpful.

If I do go to court and l didn't win what are the repercussions. I am still going to have to pay the fine.

This post has been edited by phillyb: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 09:47


--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 09:55
Post #7


Member


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



QUOTE
If I do go to court and l didn't win what are the repercussions. I am still going to have to pay the fine.


POTENTIAL COSTS OF LOSING IN COURT

this is typically broken down as :-
£100 - original parking charge
£25 - court filing fee
£50 - solicitor costs for preparing case papers (maximum, capped)
£25 - hearing fee, if it gets that far
Maybe £7 or £8 interest, depends how long it's been since the original charge.

So not much more than £200 - IF YOU LOSE!

Anything else they try to add will be spurious and must be challenged with the Judge. Please read the Excel v Wilkinson judgment thread which threw out an entire case because of the 'add-ons'. It won't necessarily cause your entire case to be dismissed, but it should put pay to any 'double recovery' charges.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G...kinson.pdf?dl=0

The other side may also apply for further costs for unreasonable behaviour, but that is a high bar, and only applies if you have failed to comply with court orders, such as not meeting deadline dates. Read all the documentation you get from the court very carefully and comply with all its requirements. I don't think I've ever seen a PPC win unreasonable behaviour costs.

IF YOU WIN - none of the above will be payable by you. But you could claim:

£95 capped maximum for loss of earnings/annual leave for half a day (take pay slips for proof)
Travel costs - public transport or mileage x 45p per mile
Parking costs.

If the PPC has been wholly unreasonable in dealing with the court, then costs awarded against them could be considerably more, but, again, the bar is set very high. We would advise nearer the time if we think this is worth you pursuing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 11:12
Post #8


Member


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



So let us see the PCN you received and your initial appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 13:29
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (phillyb @ Sun, 7 Mar 2021 - 14:48) *
I was not the driver at the time and wrote a letter of appeal.

Have PCM met the requirements to hold the keeper liable in their PCN? Almost certainly not (they never do), in which case you as keeper have no liability in the matter. So lets see the PCN.

What EXACTLY was in your appeal, did you name the driver?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phillyb
post Tue, 9 Mar 2021 - 21:57
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



I can't find the original PCN notice at the moment due to an office move, currently looking for it. However I have the evidence they provided on their site below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kizis0d302oskry/8...20copy.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0ggqtssg1s3bi6/S...20copy.png?dl=0

I appealed through there online portal www.paymypcn-uk.co.uk so I don't have the original appeal letter. However, the driver was not named.

This was their response

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mc3p5syhmp2qh81/2...214752.jpg?dl=0

2 matters I can see is that the date stamp time and the pcn details online don't match. The signage isn't on a wall near the car and in no relation to where the car is parked?


--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 9 Mar 2021 - 22:50
Post #11


Member


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



Really do need that original PCN. CPR 31.14 request to the solicitors for the PCN and a copy of the signage relevant to the place of parking.

The Signage is forbidding. Here is some wording for your defence:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It states that no parking is allowed and does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract to park existed when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. 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
phillyb
post Tue, 9 Mar 2021 - 22:54
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



I have found records that I sent this in the post as a follow up:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

I therefore expect you to immediately cancel the parking charge and inform me, in writing that you have done so.

If however, you reject this challenge, then, in accordance with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 2) 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information including the necessary POPLA code, so that I may immediately refer this matter (and any further issues that I may subsequently raise) for their adjudication on the matter.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and ardently look forward to your reply.


--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 10 Mar 2021 - 09:20
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Well PCM have no relationship with POPLA, so a POPLA decision was irrelevant. It would have helped had you clearly stated again that you were not the driver, although they concede that you 'implied' it in the original appeal.
It remains your strongest defence, if they haven't met the requirements of PoFA, which they don't have a history of doing despite claiming you are somehow liable, then you have NO liability at all, you only have to convince the Judge on Balance of probabilities that you were not the driver (and credible verbal testimony would achieve that, but anything else you could present would help).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phillyb
post Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 08:09
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



Hi,

Update on the situation. I received a response from the solicitors with the bundle of all the information they hold on the case. I have attached the documents below.

I have included the original PCN and the original response I sent. The other response posted was from several years ago and found in a rush.

It would be great to know if there is anything that's missing from these docs.

Attached Image
[attachment=75018:BUNDLE_5.jpg][attach
ment=75017:BUNDLE_3.jpg] [attachment=75019:BUNDLE_7.jpg] [attachment=75016:BUNDLE_2
.jpg]

This post has been edited by phillyb: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 08:10


--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 09:12
Post #15


Member


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



Have you acknowledged service of the claim? If you have, by my reckoning, with a claim issued on 5th March 2021, you only have until 4pm on 7th April (tomorrow!) to submit your defence.

If you haven't acknowledged service, you'd better check your MCOL history to see the current status of the claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phillyb
post Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 10:02
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,583



Hi,

Yes I don't have long to submit my defence. below is the claim history. Will it be from the 5th or the 9th when it was submitted?



Claim History
A claim was issued against you on 05/03/2021
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 09/03/2021 at 23:42:50
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 10/03/2021 at 08:05:20


--------------------
thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 10:05
Post #17


Member


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



QUOTE (phillyb @ Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 10:02) *
Hi,

Yes I don't have long to submit my defence. below is the claim history. Will it be from the 5th or the 9th when it was submitted?



Claim History
A claim was issued against you on 05/03/2021
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 09/03/2021 at 23:42:50
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 10/03/2021 at 08:05:20

(A maximum of) 33 days from the date of issue (05/03).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 6 Apr 2021 - 11:07
Post #18


Member


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



The signage is forbidding in nature, it is stating that it is forbidden to park and not offering a contract to park. To claim that a contract to park was offered when it is expressly forbidden is perverse.

Here's some text about forbidding permit only signs that I have. Different circumstances but the principle is the same:
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

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:32
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