Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 10th Nov 16, 1:45 PM
    • 93Posts
    • 85Thanks
    JackBasta
    Northampton Court Claim arrived (MCOL)
    • #1
    • 10th Nov 16, 1:45 PM
    Northampton Court Claim arrived (MCOL) 10th Nov 16 at 1:45 PM
    Just recieved a claim form through. Solicitor involved is Gladstones.

    The "parking event" occured in Summer of 2012. Original notices (if there were any - I had various at the time) ignored and it went away until this year when letters were sent again (I guess Beavis case gave them impetus to try again?).

    I replied asking for evidence (via email and letter) - they then sent though pictures of my car with parking noticed attached to windscreen.

    I then looked though these forums and sent Gladstones an EMAIL, not a letter (a mistake?) where I asked them to fully comply with Practice Direction, stating that they hadn't

    1. Sent a clear summary of facts,
    2. How the "charge amount" has been calculated and justified
    3. A list of documents on which their client intends to rely
    4. Any form of ADR.

    I got no response to that email, and now I have an N1SDT form though from Northampton (I believe this is known as an MCOL).

    Any ideas on what my next actions should be. I know I need to reply to the MCOL (I can do this online), but should I just be paying it, or if I put up a standard defence, am I likely to win?
    Will POFA 2012 help me for example?

    Thanks

    Jack
Page 5
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 1st Feb 17, 12:48 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    And incredibly, they now seem to be claiming a different amount to the original Claim form. The original POCs stated the original bill was for £125, plus £42.25 interest making a total of £167.25 So why now is it £100? Is that because they could only find a picture of a sign from 3 years later with £100 on it?
    • DollyDee
    • By DollyDee 1st Feb 17, 12:52 PM
    • 696 Posts
    • 791 Thanks
    DollyDee
    POFA received Royal Assent in May 2012 but came into effect on 1st October 2012. As the "contravention" occurred in July 2012 (before POFA) they can only pursue the driver.

    That's my understanding anyway.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Feb 17, 12:55 PM
    • 13,717 Posts
    • 16,839 Thanks
    Redx
    you did not expect the details to be accurate , did you ?

    GLADSTONES dont get paid to check details so they issue roboclaims with many inaccuracies, thought you would have learned that by reading other threads and pranksters blogs

    its your chance to put those issues to the court , especially inaccuracies on signage and the above details too

    and POFA2012 came into force on 01 OCT 2012

    bear in mind many companies dont rely on it SINCE it came in , plus its not retrospective, its up to you to point these issues out , especially if it was not in force and if they dont conform to it either (which they probably still dont)

    some of these claims are being thrown out for exactly these types of inaccuracies
    Last edited by Redx; 01-02-2017 at 2:31 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Feb 17, 2:07 PM
    • 45,230 Posts
    • 57,880 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Helen Cook who signed that - what can we say, it is an embarrassment!

    They've thrown this together, so tear it apart following the format they have, blow by blow. You just need to use their paragraph numbering and deny/refute what they say, setting it out in Times New Roman 12 font size, 1.5 line spaced (copy their format):

    e.g:

    In the County Court at Port Talbot Justice Centre

    Claim Number

    Claimant:

    Defendant:




    I am 'Jack Basta' and I am the defendant in this matter and it is confirmed that I was registered keeper of this vehicle at the material time. I will deal with the Particulars finally provided by this Claimant's Solicitors (paragraph numbering matches the Claimant's Particulars):

    1. This is the first time the location has been stated; the claim form being a jumble of incoherent information with a postcode.

    2. At no time has this Claimant provided any evidence who was driving the vehicle over five years ago. As registered keeper, I can confirm that more than one family member had access to this vehicle on the balance of probabilities alone, it was not me driving (or say it wasn't if you are certain)

    3. Laugh about the signs and how unreadable they are; not capable of forming a contract. And the only photo provided is dated 2015.

    4. It is denied that the driver entered into any contract but in any event (the driver was not me OR there is no evidence of the identity of the driver)

    5. Laugh about their rookie error pretending they can use an Act that had not even been enacted!

    6. £100 was never an agreed 'core price' for a BPA member in 2012; these sums are plucked from thin air. It can never be a 'core price term' for allowing parking with no permit, on land where the signs - if they were even there in 2012 - only make an offer (of sorts) to two groups:

    'permit holders only'

    and

    only 'authorised drivers' must adhere to a set list of regulations. No consideration is offered to any other parties and after five years it is vexatious and unreasonable to resurrect the matter on the back of the Beavis case (such firms, encouraged by Gladstones who also run the parking Trade Body the IPC, currently appear to be seeking default CCJs) and impossible to expect a registered keeper to know anything about the situation.


    7. Suddenly it's not a 'core price term' as claimed in #6 but is an alleged breach of contract instead. It can't be both - and there is no contract offered to non-permit holders from that sign.


    8. Laughable...OMG...'£50 damages as a pre-determined and nominal contribution to its actual losses'. Who writes this drivel?! What on earth is the £100 parking charge then? Not enough? In the Beavis case ParkingEye only pursued the £85 charge (no added costs) which was discussed at the Supreme Court as a sum set high enough to MORE THAN cover the generic, repetitive business operating costs of issuing template parking charge notices, leaving the operator a (dirty money, many would say) profit.



    9. So now they have changed the basis of the charge again - they are now calling it a 'loss' but with no figures setting it out to justify it. In the Beavis case, it was established that ParkingEye could not have claimed for loss, nor could they have claimed for trespass, since they were not in possession of the land. It seems the Claimant has no idea of the basis of the sum of money they are attempting to claim from a registered keeper.



    10. So Gladstones think it is fair for their IPC members (seeing as the same controlling minds run Gladstones as run the IPC, can sit on a pre-POFA PCN for 5 years then pursue the keeper under a law that didn't exist in July 2012, then to add insult to injury, then charge interest going back over the 5 years...the delay having given a keeper no chance to identify now who might have been driving and certainly no liability for interest spanning all of the ensuing years; a delay squarely caused by the claimant's own inaction.


    11. Now they are also trying to add 'costs on an indemnity basis' - another sum plucked out of thin air.



    12. Here they now describe the £100 sum in yet another way, this time it is a 'debt'. And now the randomly added £50 is 'damages for breach'...wait...I thought that was what the £100 'parking charge' was for...or was it a core price term...oh no, don't tell me...I know...it was a loss...oh wait...


    etc...you will need to write the later bits in a more formal way than my flippant comments!




    Then you also need your own evidence numbered, so you can refer to it by number in the WS (e.g. evidence might include: a print out proving the POFA Schedule 4 was only enacted in October 2012; any case law you want to rely upon; photos if you even had them from then, etc.).

    Show us how this all looks.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-02-2017 at 9:50 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 1st Feb 17, 4:55 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    That's brilliant - will do. I went back to the insurance company I was with back in 2012, and they sent me out a copy of my insurance certificate from that period that shows multiple people insured to drive the car.

    So basically, they don't know who the driver is, so they're just relying on the Judge allowing them to go after the registered keeper using legislation that wasn't in force at the time.

    Ridiculous.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Feb 17, 6:11 PM
    • 45,230 Posts
    • 57,880 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And the sign 'evidence' is date-stamped 2015. Tear it all apart, this is a house of cards you can blow over. I've added some extra comments about every paragraph. This is an absolute joke.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-02-2017 at 6:44 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 1st Feb 17, 8:53 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    Cheers CM. I'll get on this tomorrow.
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 6th Feb 17, 2:55 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    I'm just formulating my defence heavily based on CM's response above. I have a question egarding the supporting evidence I wish to produce, such as the insurance document I have detailing multiple insured drivers at the time, evidence that POFA was not in force at the time, and I also have some street view images of the poor signage.

    Am I correct is saying that I can mention that in my defence, but it does not get submitted with my defence? Instead it would get submitted with a witness statement that will be requested off me sometime between the submission of my defence and the court date?
    Last edited by JackBasta; 06-02-2017 at 4:24 PM.
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 6th Feb 17, 5:47 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    Here is the first go at the new defence - With the amazing help of CM's earlier response, I have defended the 12 points from the new POCs. However I still feel there is a defence outside of those 12 points that could help my case, so I have included those at the bottom. Please let me know if would be considered unacceptable to a judge, or if I'm maybe "overcooking" it.

    Thanks

    Jack

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is acknowledged that I, the defendant, xxxx residing at xxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle. I will deal with the Particulars finally provided by this Claimant’s solicitors (paragraph numbering matches the Claimant’s particulars).

    1. This is the first time since the claim form was issued that the location of the parking “event” has been stated; the original claim form particulars being a jumble of incoherent information with a postcode.

    2. At no time has this claimant provided any evidence who was driving the vehicle nearly 5 years ago. As the registered keeper I can confirm that more than one person had full access to the vehicle at that time. I have the insurance certificate covering the time period in question as proof of this. On the balance of probabilities alone, I was not the driver at the time of the parking event.

    3. The Claimant has finally provided details of the claim, i.e. they seem to be claiming breach of contract. The claimant has also finally supplied a picture of the installed sign they claim forms that contract (document 1 in the newly supplied Particulars of Claim). I find it remarkable that the picture of the sign supplied in document 1 is dated 05/04/2015, which is nearly 3 years after the alleged parking event, and that the amount claimed by the claimant before supposed charges and interest in the original claim form (£125) is different to the amount displayed on the sign (£100)! Due to the amount of time elapsed between the parking event and the taking of this picture, and the difference in the charge amount, I feel it is my duty to question whether this is actually a picture of the correct sign (if there actually was one) at the time of the parking event, and if so, why the charge amount on the court claim is different to the amount on the sign?

    4. In any event, it is denied that the sign used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver. The sign is insufficient in terms of its distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the ParkingEye vs Beavis case:
    I. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    II. The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
    III. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    IV. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

    5. I am amazed to see that the Claimant is attempting to pursue the defendant as the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). This legislation which came into force on 01/10/2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. It can be seen the date of the alleged incident is xx/07/2012 which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, surely the Claimant cannot hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced. This distinguishes the case from Elliot vs Loake, in which there was irrefutable evidence of the driver’s identity. Further, Elliot v Loake was a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

    6. Neither the £100 “fee” mentioned in the sign or the £125 mentioned in the claim form was ever an agreed “core price” for a BPA member in 2012. These sums are plucked from thin air. It can never be a 'core price term' for allowing parking with no permit, on land where the signs - if they were even there in 2012 - only make an offer (of sorts) to two groups:
    'permit holders only'
    and
    only 'authorised drivers' must adhere to a set list of regulations.
    No consideration is offered to any other parties and after nearly five years it is vexatious and unreasonable to resurrect the matter on the back of the ParkingEye vs Beavis case and impossible to expect a registered keeper to know anything about the situation. Such firms, encouraged by the claimant’s solicitors, Gladstone’s, who also run the parking Trade Body the IPC, currently appear to be seeking default CCJs.

    7. In #6, the claimant states the sum of £100 is an agreed “core price term”. In #7, the Claimant is alleging breach of contract. Which is it to be? It can’t be both. And there is no contract offered to non-permit holders from the sign pictured in document 1.

    8. If the claimant is claiming “£50 damages as a pre-determined and nominal contribution to its actual losses”, then what is the actual £100 parking “charge” for? In ParkingEye vs Beavis, the claimant only pursued the £85 charge (no added costs) which was discussed at the Supreme Court as a sum set high enough to MORE THAN cover the generic, repetitive business operating costs of issuing template parking charge notices, leaving the operator a profit.
    It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

    9. Under a section entitled “partculars of loss (sic)”, the Claimant now changes the basis of the charge once again. They are now calling it a “loss”, but with no figures setting it out to justify it. In ParkingEye vs Beavis, it was established that ParkingEye could not have claimed for loss, nor could they have claimed for trespass, since they were not in possession of the land. It seems the Claimant has no idea of the basis of the sum of money they are attempting to claim from a registered keeper.

    10. I am amazed to see that the Claimant feels that it is reasonable behaviour to wait nearly FIVE years before pursuing the registered keeper of a pre-POFA 2012 PCN, using a law that didn’t even exist at the time of the parking event, and then to add insult to injury, charge interest going back over the five years! The five-year delay having given the registered keeper no chance to identify now who may have been driving at the time and certainly no liability for interest spanning all the ensuing years. The delay has squarely been caused by the Claimant’s own inaction and is grossly unfair.

    11. The claimant is now trying to add “costs on contractual (indemnity) basis”, yet another term for a sum plucked out of thin air.

    And the Claimant Claims:
    Yet another term for the £100 sum – it is now apparently a “debt”. And the £50 is for “damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract”. Throughout these particulars, there has been no clarity on whether the £100 and £50 “charges” actually are. Are they loss, debt, breach of contract, costs on contractual indemnity, or a core price term?

    I would like to add further items to my defence that are outside strict defence of the numbered particulars of claim.

    12. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
    Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.

    13. I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application, despite sending a CPR 31.14 request to the Claimant's solicitors on 21/11/2016. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant, and no such proof has been provided.

    14. In the pre-court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt. They did not send me a Letter before Claim that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Claim can be seen to miss the following information
    I. A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
    II. A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
    III. How the “charge amount” of £125 was calculated and justified.
    IV. Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

    15. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    16. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye v Beavis.

    17. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This Claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

    18. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter, and in the event that the claim is struck out, I will ask the court for recompense from the Claimant.


    STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the facts stated within this witness statement are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 17, 10:45 PM
    • 45,230 Posts
    • 57,880 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks very good indeed.

    Just to add, have you been shown a copy of the original PCN? I'm just helping someone with a Millennium set-aside and when asked for a copy of the PCN they 'reprinted' it in 2016, effectively a mock-up, and forgot to put in the contravention! Left it blank. Not a copy of the PCN at all then...I seem to recall Millennium always have this problem, it rang a bell.

    So, somewhere in there, put them to strict proof that a PCN was ever served and require a copy of that PCN as well as any letters that they allege followed. No doubt you will also get a mock-up fresh copy straight off their system. Unless you already have? Seems like another defence point to me, if a PPC hasn't bothered to keep a true copy of the PCN and has to insert details manually five years later to 're-print' a pretend version, this is no proof that any actual PCN ever existed or what it said. Fundamental evidence.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 7th Feb 17, 11:17 AM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    Thanks CM - I haven't seen the original PCN, no. I sent Millenium a SAR back in November asking for everything they have. They sent me a letter last week dated November (but the Envelope has a January 26 postmark, which I've kept) saying that it was all in the hands of Gladstones now so I would need to contact them. I'll add the PCN in to my defence.

    Once I submit my new defence, can anyone tell me what the next step is? I believe I'll need to send in a witness statement, and that is where I attach my evidence? Will I get asked for the WS by the courts?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Feb 17, 11:22 AM
    • 31,219 Posts
    • 15,194 Thanks
    Quentin
    Read up in the newbies faq thread for links to other sources of advice on court cases and procedure.


    Also this thread has a walkthrough of the steps up to a hearing:


    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5546325
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 7th Feb 17, 12:09 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    Ah I had been though the bargepole sticky a few times when I first started on this, but must have glossed over the WS stuff a bit too quickly.

    Apologies.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 7th Feb 17, 12:19 PM
    • 1,180 Posts
    • 1,528 Thanks
    Castle
    Thanks CM - I haven't seen the original PCN, no. I sent Millenium a SAR back in November asking for everything they have. They sent me a letter last week dated November (but the Envelope has a January 26 postmark, which I've kept) saying that it was all in the hands of Gladstones now so I would need to contact them.
    Originally posted by JackBasta
    If they haven't replied to your SAR you should make a formal complaint to the ICO; failure to respond to a SAR within 40 days is a breach of the 1998 Data Protection Act.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 7th Feb 17, 12:44 PM
    • 1,941 Posts
    • 5,392 Thanks
    bargepole
    Ah I had been though the bargepole sticky a few times when I first started on this, but must have glossed over the WS stuff a bit too quickly.

    Apologies.
    Originally posted by JackBasta
    You 'glossed over' stuff that I spent hours slaving over a hot keyboard to produce for your benefit?

    That means you have to pay a £100 penalty (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days). This charge is enforceable, due to the legitimate interest I have in deterring such behaviour. Please PM me your details, and I'll send an invoice.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 21. Lost 7.
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 7th Feb 17, 12:45 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    Just double checked and I sent a CPR 31.14 to Gladstones in November and got no response.

    I sent the SAR to Millenium on 4th Jan, so they still have some time. They sent me a letter last week which was dated 7/11/2016 (I guess they forgot to change it from a template letter) saying that the PCN has progressed to Gladstones so Millenium are no longer able to address the issues raised in my correspondance, and that Gladstone's will be in touch. And that they won't accept any further correspondance regarding the PCN - I must correspond directly with Gladstones.

    I'm not sure they can refuse a SAR based on the fact they're paying someone else to handle the case for them?
    Last edited by JackBasta; 07-02-2017 at 12:50 PM.
    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 7th Feb 17, 12:49 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    You 'glossed over' stuff that I spent hours slaving over a hot keyboard to produce for your benefit?

    That means you have to pay a £100 penalty (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days). This charge is enforceable, due to the legitimate interest I have in deterring such behaviour. Please PM me your details, and I'll send an invoice.
    Originally posted by bargepole

    I hope you had planning permission for that post? And a chain of contracts from the forum to you?

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 17, 3:03 PM
    • 45,230 Posts
    • 57,880 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You 'glossed over' stuff that I spent hours slaving over a hot keyboard to produce for your benefit?

    That means you have to pay a £100 penalty (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days). This charge is enforceable, due to the legitimate interest I have in deterring such behaviour. Please PM me your details, and I'll send an invoice.
    Originally posted by bargepole
    You almost sound serious there bargepole, needed a smiley face so people get it!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • JackBasta
    • By JackBasta 20th Mar 17, 11:54 AM
    • 93 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    JackBasta
    Got my court date through - May 31st. I have to get in my Witness statement by 28th March, so I'm gathering what I need together.

    I have pictures of the signage from 2014 from google street view. There's no signage pictures from when the event took place in 2012, and even Gladstones only sent me a picture of the signage from 2015!

    I'm making copies of the non compliant LBC and also the Part 18 and CPR 34.16 requests that were ignored, hopefully to persuade the judge that they're unreasonable.

    As the incident was pre-POFA (July 2012), and their claim states they are attempting to use POFA to go after me as the keeper, I need some evidence that POFA 2012 only came into force on October 1st. I've googled but can't find any proof of this? It doesn't say it on the act itself? The act itself only mentions May 1st 2012, which was when it was drawn up I believe, but not in force.

    Anyone got any ideas how I can prove POFA was not in force in July 2012?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 20th Mar 17, 12:33 PM
    • 38,558 Posts
    • 77,029 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    From http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

    The legislation within the bill may come into effect immediately, after a set period or only after a commencement order by a government minister.

    Commencement order dates for the act can be found here.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2234/contents/made

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2234/earlier-orders/made

    Schedule 4 1st October 2012

    HTH

    Fruity.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

627Posts Today

5,150Users online

Martin's Twitter