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
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 29th Sep 17, 3:44 AM
    • 14Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    Received Claim Form - Need help!!!
    • #1
    • 29th Sep 17, 3:44 AM
    Received Claim Form - Need help!!! 29th Sep 17 at 3:44 AM
    Hi all

    The expected happened... CLAIM FORM! Just what I need as I am settling down as an unemployed university student...

    I'll try and give as much detail as possible in bullet points:
    • Issued at 23:03 on 27/10/16
    • Reason: Parked within a restricted area
    • Original cost: 100
    • Cost now with court: £245.32 (£170.32 parking charge, £25 court fee, £50 legal fee)
    • Issue date: 15 sep 2017
    • AOS date: 29/09/2017
    • Claimant: Parking Control Management (UK) Limited
    • Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors

    A little background of what happened on the night:

    The driver parked in a location that was shown by a friend a few times, a place by the river. The driver has always have parked in the same location: a small opening between two bushes. It is not a marked bay, although there are marked bays to the left and right (behind the bushes, not as though my car blocks any car coming in or out of the spaces. I will leave a Google maps view below). The vehicle was parked at the location for approximately 18 minutes, from 22:52 until 23:10.

    The driver followed some bad advice for a while and ignored, got better advice, sent appeal etc... Lot's of scary looking debt collector and solicitor letters from Gladstones. LBC was dated 3rd July 2017. I responded to the LBC asking for photos and all evidence etc as advised, which they did send. Evidence is pretty against the driver.

    The driver didn't see the sign. The driver had been there multiple times with friends with no issues so it didn't even cross their mind. The sign is fairly high on a lamppost and at that time of night there was literally no reason for the driver to look in that direction.

    They have sufficient photographic evidence against the driver which I can upload if it makes it easier.

    I've done the AOS online today and now need where to go from here... I really can't afford £250 as a 19 year old unemployed uni student and the whole idea of court is making me a nervous wreck!!!

    Any help is really appreciated.
    Last edited by Grap3fruit; 29-09-2017 at 5:00 PM. Reason: add more details
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Sep 17, 8:15 AM
    • 579 Posts
    • 701 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 29th Sep 17, 8:15 AM
    • #2
    • 29th Sep 17, 8:15 AM
    So why did you identify the driver in your post?
    EDIT NOW. The driver is just that - "the driver".

    And seriously chill about court. Its you, them and a judge ina suit. Normal looking office. really not that stressful.

    You should have spotted the NEWBIES thread. You MUST have read this by now and you MUST use this to help you with your defence.

    POFA compliance is one to look out for.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 29th Sep 17, 11:08 AM
    • 1,032 Posts
    • 2,051 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #3
    • 29th Sep 17, 11:08 AM
    • #3
    • 29th Sep 17, 11:08 AM
    I responded to the LBC asking for photos and all evidence etc as advised, which they did send. Evidence is pretty against me.
    That's what they want your to think? But it's not the case.

    Let's look at some of the facts"
    I honestly didn't see the sign. I'd been there multiple times with friends with no issues
    This is important evidence. It is their responsibility to ensure the signs are "unmissable". There is case law (The Beavis case) which states signs must be ample, clear and prominent and leave the driver in no doubt that they are entering into a contract.

    The sign is fairly high on a lamppost and at that time of night there was literally no reason for me to look in that direction.
    Again - significant evidence! As above, have they done everything reasonably possible to ensure you saw the sign? Was it illuminated at night? If not that is VERY significant.

    See VCS vs O'Connor:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5530541#topofpage
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 17, 1:30 PM
    • 50,687 Posts
    • 64,093 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 29th Sep 17, 1:30 PM
    • #4
    • 29th Sep 17, 1:30 PM
    Evidence is pretty against me.
    Nope, it's not, and we win over 99% of defended cases here.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 3rd Oct 17, 9:44 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    • #5
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:44 PM
    • #5
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:44 PM
    Hi all.

    Been looking into this over the past couple of days trying to work out my defence. I'm a bit lost, so I apologise for asking for more help.

    I also made a mistake in my OP. The sign is not actually located on a high lamppost, but instead on a fairly low post (6ft or so) that does not have a light source near it and is facing perpendicular to the direction of my vehicle (it is 'in line' with the white parking lines)

    I came across the following thread(sorry can't post links):
    showthread.php?p=71597350


    Specifically the following listed in that thread:
    I didn't see the signs
    I can't afford to pay
    (POSSIBLY) Pre-action Protocols not followed

    I just don't really know what leg I've got to stand on. It was dark, I had been there with friends 20 or so times before and so had no reason to be looking out for a sign. It was issued at 23:03 and was obviously pitch black outside. I have not visited that location in over a year now (it's in Greenhithe.. I'm in Bristol) and I'm an unemployed university student... I barely have enough money to buy food! The "pre-action protocols not followed" part was that I do not believe to have ever received any reply to my appeal, and on the back of the original ticket it states "All appeals received are responded to.". Really don't think much of this one but just a small thing I noticed that I thought was worth mentioning.


    //EDIT:
    Just realised something that may be some defence? One of the photos they took shows where my vehicle was parked, probably 5m or so from the car. However, the following points are what I have noticed that I could (maybe) use against them.
    • There is no nearby lightsource to light the sign (other than a lamppost that is a far direction away from the sign). The photographer has used their flash on their camera to make it look visible, clearly shown by the reflective lights on the car and the cars number plates (bright yellow plate / lights look like the are on). There is another photo provided by them from the other direction (taking a picture of the front of the car) that quite clearly shows just how dark it was behind the car (flashes can't shine through objects!!) but not sure how much this would stand legally.
    • The sign appears to be bent inwards away from the facing direction of the car (only slightly) but possible may have been enough that the driver didn't see the sign? I can post the picture if needed. Just a shot!


    Really quite nervous now about the entire ordeal - I just really can't see any defence for myself that is really unique to my case.

    Any help is seriously appreciated.
    Last edited by Grap3fruit; 03-10-2017 at 10:00 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 11:10 PM
    • 50,687 Posts
    • 64,093 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 3rd Oct 17, 11:10 PM
    • #6
    • 3rd Oct 17, 11:10 PM

    //EDIT:
    Just realised something that may be some defence? One of the photos they took shows where my vehicle was parked, probably 5m or so from the car. However, the following points are what I have noticed that I could (maybe) use against them.

    [*]There is no nearby lightsource to light the sign (other than a lamppost that is a far direction away from the sign). The photographer has used their flash on their camera to make it look visible, clearly shown by the reflective lights on the car and the cars number plates (bright yellow plate / lights look like the are on). There is another photo provided by them from the other direction (taking a picture of the front of the car) that quite clearly shows just how dark it was behind the car (flashes can't shine through objects!!) but not sure how much this would stand legally.
    [*]The sign appears to be bent inwards away from the facing direction of the car (only slightly) but possible may have been enough that the driver didn't see the sign? I can post the picture if needed. Just a shot!
    Originally posted by Grap3fruit
    That's a start. And that because no signs were visible, there was no contract formed. And that there was no evidence that the car was 'parked within a restricted area' (what markings?!).

    All you need to do is add the above specifics into the body of a Gladstone defence you find about parking in a restricted area, such as one of the defences linked in the NEWBIES thread.

    Never fear, put your thoughts together with an example Gladstones defence from here (there are shedloads); you don't even need to know how to search the forum as they hit you in the face on every page every day!

    You could practically copy one and still beat Gladstones, look how USELESS they are:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116126

    Put these words into Google, now, and read the results to learn about what you are facing:

    you've been gladstoned PCM

    Do you get it?!! They are TERRIBLE!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-10-2017 at 11:17 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 13th Oct 17, 2:40 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    • #7
    • 13th Oct 17, 2:40 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Oct 17, 2:40 PM
    Hi!

    Thanks for all your help thus far.

    I have written the below defence from using examples found on the forum. Please let me know what you think of it. I need to hand this into the courts by Wednesday so want to have it sorted by tomorrow at latest.

    FAO: CCBC
    Claim No: XXXXXXXX
    Issue Date: XX XX XX

    Statement of Defence

    I am X, the defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

    The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘Roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

    On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘Roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    This has prejudiced the Defendant's chance to understand the cause of action in this case, and the Defendant can only surmise that it may relate to an unwarranted 'PCN' placed on the car in October 2016. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

    Attempts were made to appeal the charge and the Defendant did not receive any documentation stating the outcome of the appeal. The Claimants reasoning for this case is being parked within a restricted area, however the Defendant believes that area did not provide sufficient light to be able to view the parking signs, and due to the fact that the Defendant had been to this location multiple times before, the Defendant would not have been looking for any signs relating to parking as he had no reason to believe it was regulated.

    The angle at which the Defendants car was parked was perpendicular to the sign, as shown in the photographic evidence taken by the ticket officer at the time. This angle would have prevented the Defendant from viewing the sign and therefore the Claimant failed to provide a clear and visible sign.

    The ticket was issued at 23:03 in the month of October, and in the month of October the time of sunset would have been approximately 5 hours before the ticket was issued. There is also no additional lighting provided by the sign that was closest to the driver, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible to see.

    In the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant online, it is very apparent that the ticketing officer at the time had taken advantage of using flash photography and possibly changing the exposure of the photo to incorrectly show the amount of light provided in the area. This is evidenced by the fact that both the number plates (on two separate vehicles) and the taillights on the car in question appear to be reflecting a light source. Another photograph provided by the Claimant shows the front of the car, in which you can clearly see that no light source is provided in the area that the sign is located in. It also shows a more accurate representation of how dark the area is as the majority of the light from the flash of the camera is blocked by the vehicle in question.

    The sign located near the Defendants car also appears to be bent in a direction that faces away from the driver’s view upon exiting the vehicle. This is also shown in the Claimants photographic evidence. Due to the lack of lighting and the fact the sign was bent, the Defendant does not believe that any contract would have been entered as the signage was not adequate, visible or clear. For the reasons listed above, the Defendant believes that contract was formed.

    Even if the court finds that signs prohibiting parking were not perpendicular to the vehicle, it is confidently argued that these cannot have been prominent. Therefore, no contract has been formed. Even if the court finds there were prominent signs, the Defendant avers that a prohibition on parking cannot also be a contractual offer to do that which is forbidden, for a 'charge’.

    Even if the court is minded to believe that this site could, in theory, charge money for an issue such as this one then in any case, this would be an issue falling only under the tort of trespass, a matter which remains in the gift of the landowner themselves only.

    The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    Last edited by Grap3fruit; 13-10-2017 at 2:43 PM.
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 14th Oct 17, 7:42 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    • #8
    • 14th Oct 17, 7:42 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Oct 17, 7:42 PM
    Hi all

    Could someone let me know if the above defence is good enough to hand in? Any help is extremely appreciated.

    Thank you in advance
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Oct 17, 10:30 PM
    • 1,032 Posts
    • 2,051 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #9
    • 14th Oct 17, 10:30 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Oct 17, 10:30 PM
    This has prejudiced the Defendant's chance to understand the cause of action in this case, and the Defendant can only surmise that it may relate to an unwarranted 'PCN' placed on the car in October 2016. On this basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

    Attempts were made to appeal the charge and the Defendant did not receive any documentation stating the outcome of the appeal. The Claimants reasoning for this case is being parked within a restricted area, however the Defendant believes that area did not provide sufficient light to be able to view the parking signs, and due to the fact that the Defendant had been to this location multiple times before, the Defendant would not have been looking for any signs relating to parking as he had no reason to believe it was regulated.
    Reword:
    "The defendant made a valid appeal to the initial PCN which should have resulted in the claimant cancelling charge and no further action being taken. No response to the appeal was received.

    This is a clear failure by the claimant to engage with the defendant in order to understand the facts and narrow the issues. Such conduct is a breach of Practice Direction - Pre action conduct and protocols and has resulted in this unnecessary and unmeritorious litigation, which is an abuse of court process and against the public interest.

    The claimant states that the vehicle in question was parked in a "restricted area". This is denied.
    - The driver parked the vehicle during the hours of complete darkness and did not see any signs
    - Even if any signs were present they were not illuminated meaning even if the driver did see them (which he/she did not) they would not have been able to read an unlit sign in full darkness
    - a sign which cannot be seen or read by a consumer cannot form a contract. This is trite law and firmly established in the Consumer Rights Act 2015"


    Remove all the stuff about the vehicle been 'perpendicular' - just say that the driver didn't see the signs

    You say that the driver had parked there many time before - so had the PPC only recently taken over parking enforcement at the site?
    Last edited by Lamilad; 14-10-2017 at 10:32 PM.
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 15th Oct 17, 5:46 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    Thank you for your help.

    I am actually not sure when the PPC took over enforcement, all I know is that the driver had parked at that location numerous times and never had any trouble until this ticket.

    I have changed it to the following - does this defence now look ready?

    FAO: CCBC
    Claim No: XXXXXXXX
    Issue Date: XX XX XX

    Statement of Defence

    I am X, the defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

    The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘Roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

    On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘Roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    This has prejudiced the Defendant's chance to understand the cause of action in this case. On this basis, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

    The defendant made a valid appeal to the initial PCN which should have resulted in the claimant cancelling charge and no further action being taken. No response to the appeal was received.

    This is a clear failure by the claimant to engage with the defendant in order to understand the facts and narrow the issues. Such conduct is a breach of Practice Direction - Pre action conduct and protocols and has resulted in this unnecessary and unmeritorious litigation, which is an abuse of court process and against the public interest.

    The claimant states that the vehicle in question was parked in a "restricted area". This is denied.
    - The driver parked the vehicle during the hours of complete darkness and did not see any signs
    - Even if any signs were present they were not illuminated meaning even if the driver did see them (which he/she did not) they would not have been able to read an unlit sign in full darkness
    - a sign which cannot be seen or read by a consumer cannot form a contract. This is trite law and firmly established in the Consumer Rights Act 2015

    The ticket was issued at 23:03 in the month of October, and in the month of October the time of sunset would have been approximately 5 hours before the ticket was issued. There is also no additional lighting provided by the sign that was closest to the driver, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible to see.

    In the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant online, it is very apparent that the ticketing officer at the time had taken advantage of using flash photography and possibly changing the exposure of the photo to incorrectly show the amount of light provided in the area. This is evidenced by the fact that both the number plates (on two separate vehicles) and the taillights on the car in question appear to be reflecting a light source. Another photograph provided by the Claimant shows the front of the car, in which you can clearly see that no light source is provided in the area that the sign is located in. It also shows a more accurate representation of how dark the area is as the majority of the light from the flash of the camera is blocked by the vehicle in question.

    The sign located near the Defendants car also appears to be bent in a direction that faces away from the driver’s view upon exiting the vehicle. This is also shown in the Claimants photographic evidence. Due to the lack of lighting and the fact the sign was bent, the Defendant does not believe that any contract would have been entered as the signage was not adequate, visible or clear. For the reasons listed above, the Defendant believes that contract was formed.

    Even if the court finds that signs prohibiting parking were not perpendicular to the vehicle, it is confidently argued that these cannot have been prominent. Therefore, no contract has been formed. Even if the court finds there were prominent signs, the Defendant avers that a prohibition on parking cannot also be a contractual offer to do that which is forbidden, for a 'charge’.

    Even if the court is minded to believe that this site could, in theory, charge money for an issue such as this one then in any case, this would be an issue falling only under the tort of trespass, a matter which remains in the gift of the landowner themselves only.

    The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 16th Oct 17, 3:31 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    Hi

    Could someone please advise if I can hand in the defence? I wish to do this today.

    Thanks
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 17th Oct 17, 11:00 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    Hi All

    Any last criticisms on my defence before handing it in? I don't want to do it unless I'm confident!
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 17th Oct 17, 3:29 PM
    • 222 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    claxtome
    My thoughts off the top of my head.
    Did you receive a PCN in the post OR on the day attached to the car?
    The reason I am asking is -> If it was the former that would have effectively been your Notice to Keeper (NTK). If they latter the NTK should have come later in the post.

    I was just wondering have you got any POFA 2012 breaches for when they got your Keeper details.
    Google Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and look at Schedule 4 and check for any breaches.

    Only other suggestion is - have you looked up and read the IPC CoP guidleines - maybe you can quote some further breaches from this page by Cicking on the link in the 'Code of Practice' section->
    https://theipc.info/accredited-operator-scheme
    Last edited by claxtome; 17-10-2017 at 3:32 PM.
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 17th Oct 17, 3:47 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    Hi

    PCN was attached to car in the yellow sticky bag.

    I don't quite understand what you mean with the POFA 2012 breaches, I assume they just contacted the DVLA to get the details? Are they not allowed to do this or something?

    I've looked at the following;

    legislation(dot)gov(dot)uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

    And I can't really see anything that points out to me... It's all written in such a formal way that I genuinely struggle to understand it but I'm not entirely sure there's anything I can add to my defence from this.

    I'll take a look over the IPC guidelines as they seem a little easier for me to understand. Thanks four your help
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 17th Oct 17, 4:04 PM
    • 222 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    claxtome
    I don't quite understand what you mean with the POFA 2012 breaches, I assume they just contacted the DVLA to get the details? Are they not allowed to do this or something?
    POFA Schedule 4 is what gives the PPC the power to contact DVLA to get details of the keeper and send a Notice to the Keeper relating to the PCN. The POFA sets out the regulations that they must follow to do this.

    You are appealing as the keeper (not seen you mention who was the driver in your defence). The main advantage of this is you can check to make sure they issued the NTK to you as per Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

    I know it is late in the day but if you have the NTK to hand you can check they have done this as per POFA Schedule 4 (I know it is not easy reading)->
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

    You could just say in your defence:
    "The Notice to Keeper was not issued as per Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012"
    And add the details of what the breaches are at your Witness Statement stage where the NTK could be exhibited as evidence.

    Just a suggestion - as a lot of cases are thrown out when appealing as the keeper and POFA Schedule 4 was not followed
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Oct 17, 4:09 PM
    • 16,093 Posts
    • 20,149 Thanks
    Redx
    not all companies follow POFA2012 as it is NOT mandatory

    membership of an AOS (BPA or IPC) is what gives them the right for KADOE access to the DVLA database, not POFA2012

    POFA2012 sets out the information that should be present on the paperwork and also the timescales as well, in order to transfer liability to the KEEPER from the driver

    if they fail POFA2012, then the keeper is not liable

    if they know who the driver is , they dont need POFA2012 and dont have to follow its schedules either (same as they didnt before, same as they dont in scotland or in Northern Ireland for that matter , as it does not apply)

    I agree that if the driver has not been identified, they must follow POFA2012 to hold a keeper liable

    this is one reason LAMILAD won in court on more than one occasion

    EXCEL (or VCS) failed to adhere to POFA2012

    see his threads , posts and his transcript to see the gist

    so fail to follow POFA2012, dont know the driver , their case fails
    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
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 17th Oct 17, 4:15 PM
    • 222 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    claxtome
    membership of an AOS (BPA or IPC) is what gives them the right for KADOE access to the DVLA database, not POFA2012

    POFA2012 sets out the information that should be present on the paperwork and also the timescales as well, in order to transfer liability to the KEEPER from the driver
    Thanks for clarifying. Redx
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 17th Oct 17, 4:21 PM
    • 222 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    claxtome
    I'll take a look over the IPC guidelines as they seem a little easier for me to understand.
    I think the following section in your defence could have a breach of AOS CoP Signage guidelines->

    The claimant states that the vehicle in question was parked in a "restricted area". This is denied.
    - The driver parked the vehicle during the hours of complete darkness and did not see any signs
    - Even if any signs were present they were not illuminated meaning even if the driver did see them (which he/she did not) they would not have been able to read an unlit sign in full darkness
    - a sign which cannot be seen or read by a consumer cannot form a contract. This is trite law and firmly established in the Consumer Rights Act 2015
    1 final thing - I assume you are going to number the paragraphs and format as per defence layout suggestions in NEWBIE thread?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Oct 17, 4:27 PM
    • 16,093 Posts
    • 20,149 Thanks
    Redx
    also bear in mind that if parking is not offered then its forbidding signage (seen or unseen) and so there is no contract on offer, so the landowner can sue for trespass and any damage , not the PPC for parking

    also see the popla decision in post #24 here

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5711305&page=2

    this explains about transferring liability from driver to keeper, the PPC failed to do so and lost
    Last edited by Redx; 17-10-2017 at 5:32 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
    • Grap3fruit
    • By Grap3fruit 17th Oct 17, 5:00 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Grap3fruit
    Right...

    I have just checked all dates and such and I can see the following:

    Notice to keeper: notice given on 16/12/2016
    Letter before claim - dated 03/07/2017
    Claim - issue date is 15/09/2017

    I can't see any breaches of POFA2012...Would it be useful me posting a scanned image of the NTK and LBC?

    I've just noticed none of the costs add up.. this is outlined below:

    NOTICE TO KEEPER: Total due was £100 (upped from £60 original ticket cost)
    FINAL REMINDER (3rd may, 2 months before LBC):
    Claim issue fee: £25
    Solicitors costs for issue of claim: £50
    Judgement costs: £25
    Warrant issue fee: £100
    Solicitors cost for issue of warrant: £2.25
    Total: £202.25

    LETTER BEFORE CLAIM: £160 charge outlined with no additional costs

    CLAIM FORM:
    Amount claimed: £170.32
    Court fee: £25
    Legal representatives costs: £50

    Total: £245.32


    How are there so many differences in the actual charge amount? Can I use this against them in any way?

    Not sure if there is any help with this but here is a picture of the sign: i(dot)gyazo(dot)com/9ebc829cf71501ab2e07c212c1f3bcfc.png
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

4,245Posts Today

7,169Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin