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
    • SD200
    • By SD200 26th Nov 17, 12:02 AM
    • 7Posts
    • 0Thanks
    SD200
    Help with N244 for CCJ from NWCP
    • #1
    • 26th Nov 17, 12:02 AM
    Help with N244 for CCJ from NWCP 26th Nov 17 at 12:02 AM
    First time poster, I've read as much as I can understand of the newbies section but would like some help in how best to proceed.

    A few days ago I was checking my credit file and noticed an entry from July 2017 for a CCJ and having contacted the bulk processing court in Northampton I was informed this was from NWCP. I emailed NWCP to ask them what this referred to and was promptly informed that the PCN was from 21 Jan 2017 from Sykes Street in Preston at around 7pm, that a PCN was affixed to the drivers windscreen, that a NtK was sent to my address on 07/03/2017, demand for payment on 22/03/17, final notice of litigation from Capital Collect on 05/04/17. County Court proceedings sent to my address on 12/06/17 and default judgment for £165 on 06/07/17. The driver had paid for a ticket which was clearly displayed in vehicle as supported by the photographs I have been sent dated and time stamped on the day the PCN was issued, however had overstayed by 13 minutes thus the reason for the PCN. I now know having read this forum that I made an error in contacting NWCP with my new address.


    I was not driving the vehicle at the time the PCN was issued. I am the registered keeper although I seldom use the vehicle as have a van I use for work. The driver was named on the insurance as was I. The driver has no recollection of this PCN although NWCP have sent me photographs of the PCN affixed to the windscreen.

    I moved out of the property at the middle of April 2017 and into a new address. The vehicle was advertised for sale during the time of the move and as I did not want to be without the logbook while waiting for it to come back from the DVLA in case someone came to view and buy the car and so I did not update this to my new address. The vehicle the PCN was issued to was sold in July of 2017 and I have proof of the sale via an email from eBay. I have proof of the move with electoral role, council tax, utility bills etc.

    Initially I intend to apply for a set aside using from N244. I have researched how to fill out this form via this site and pepipoo but would like some advice to ensure I am following the correct procedures.

    On the N244 form is asks:

    'Have you attached a draft of the order you are applying for'?

    I intend to write - no.

    'What information will you relying on, in support of your application'

    I intend to tick the 'evidence set out in the box below'.

    My draft statement is as follows: -

    I am xxxxxxxxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
    This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 25/11/17 to:
    · Set aside the Default Judgement dated July 2017 as it was not properly served at my current address;
    · Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
    · Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

    1. Default Judgement
    1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in July 2017. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until November 2017 when I was doing a routine check on my credit file. I understand that this Claim was served at previous address (xxxxx). However, I moved to a new address in April 2017. In support of this I can provide confirmation from xxxxx County Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

    1.2. I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to challenge the Claimant’s claim.

    1.3. On the 24/11/2017 I contacted Northampton County Court to request information regarding the Default Judgement. I immediately, also on 24/11/207 contacted NWCP for further information. As the registered keeper of the vehicle i have taken steps to revolve this matter as soon as I became aware.

    1.4. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.



    2. Order dismissing the Claim

    2.1. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

    2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice’’, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

    2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

    2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

    2.5. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:
    2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.
    2.5.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
    2.5.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.
    2.5.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.
    2.6. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
    2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Also worth noting is the photo's they've sent me; the pictures of the vehicle are all time stamped in the evening in question, it was dark and the car park poorly lit, but the picture they sent me of the sign was dated 23/11/17 in the morning when it was daylight!

    This is obviously a very brief summary of what I intend to submit on the N244, but am I on the right track with this? Is there anything else anyone feels I should include or have omitted? Should I include evidence of my house move? I have nothing to lose here as I already have a default judgement, it's very important this is set aside due to the impact this will have on my ability to gain credit or anything else that requires a credit check. Your input would be appreciated enormously.
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 26th Nov 17, 8:35 AM
    • 6,467 Posts
    • 8,290 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 26th Nov 17, 8:35 AM
    • #2
    • 26th Nov 17, 8:35 AM
    "Also worth noting is the photo's they've sent me; the pictures of the vehicle are all time stamped in the evening in question, it was dark and the car park poorly lit, but the picture they sent me of the sign was dated 23/11/17 in the morning when it was daylight!"

    If you can, take a picture of the sign in the dark as they took
    pics of your car. Different angles as a motorist would see it

    Some of these PPC's are so backwards ?
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 26th Nov 17, 11:09 AM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #3
    • 26th Nov 17, 11:09 AM
    • #3
    • 26th Nov 17, 11:09 AM
    Why haven’t you attached a draft order?

    That’s what you want the court to,order as a r3sult of your application ! Why not add it?

    1) set aside judgement of .....
    2) order the claimant to pay £255 within 14 days of this hearing
    3) - if you’re confident - order to strike the claim as having no prospect of success
    • SD200
    • By SD200 26th Nov 17, 4:41 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SD200
    • #4
    • 26th Nov 17, 4:41 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Nov 17, 4:41 PM
    Thank you for replying nosferatu1, that makes complete sense. I will attach a draft order stating something similar to the above.

    I'm confident the claimant has no prospect of success, NWCP haven't had much luck in the courts recently and I have enough evidence to show there are two people named on the insurance policy for the vehicle, that I have an insurance policy for another vehicle and so there's clear evidence that the driver of the vehicle may not the registered keeper. NWCP need to prove I was driving, which they can't. Having viewed their evidence so far they don't have a picture of their signage from when the PCN was issued, they have sent me one from last week so can't prove a contract was formed.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 26th Nov 17, 7:17 PM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 26th Nov 17, 7:17 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Nov 17, 7:17 PM
    Or they can rely on pofa - so you need to aver they have failed to follow pofa.

    You could claim failures to ensure service of the form - they left a few months before filing, and 8 assume no contac5 was made with them?
    • SD200
    • By SD200 26th Nov 17, 11:27 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SD200
    • #6
    • 26th Nov 17, 11:27 PM
    • #6
    • 26th Nov 17, 11:27 PM
    Thanks again for the reply. No I made no contact at all with them.

    Nosferatu1001 I can’t seem to find any information relating to a failure to ensure service of the form. It would appear the timeline of their attempts to contact me
    are reasonable, unless I’m missing something?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Nov 17, 7:53 AM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 27th Nov 17, 7:53 AM
    • #7
    • 27th Nov 17, 7:53 AM
    If you made no contact with them, ever, then how did they know the Keeper was resident at that address?
    They don't, is the answer.

    So you can argue that they failed to ensure good service of the claim form, as they did not perform reasonable diligence once they had a belief that the Keeper was not resident there - as no contact was ever made, to a reasonable person you WOULD begin to wonder if you had the right address wouldnt you!

    Failure to ensure good service should mean the CCJ is set aside automatically, i.e. WITHOUT you having to show a good chance of successfully defending a hearing

    However, and you will have seen this in all the set aside threads I TRUST you have read (?!) - you still supply a defence anyway, as that also supports your draft order asking the claim to be struck *and* acts as a get out in case the court does not agree on the "good service" argument.
    • SD200
    • By SD200 27th Nov 17, 1:11 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SD200
    • #8
    • 27th Nov 17, 1:11 PM
    • #8
    • 27th Nov 17, 1:11 PM
    Once again thank you for taking time to reply. Ok that makes more sense now, I misunderstood the process somewhat. Thanks for clarification. I will work on my defence this evening and post back up here for critique.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Nov 17, 1:29 PM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #9
    • 27th Nov 17, 1:29 PM
    • #9
    • 27th Nov 17, 1:29 PM
    Have you read around other set aside threads?
    There is a WEALTH of info on here, that will not all make its way into this thread.
    • SD200
    • By SD200 28th Nov 17, 11:30 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SD200
    Hi yes I've read on other threads and have try to absorb and understand as best I can. I've amended what I intend to put on my application and before I submit if anyone could please assist me and ensure I haven't missed anything?

    Draft Order

    To order that the Judgement dated XXX of XXX County Court case number ***** be set aside on the basis that the claim was not properly served at my current address.

    To order the Claimant to pay £255 within 14 days.

    To strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

    Supporting Statement

    I am xxxxxxxxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
    This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 25/11/17 to:
    · Set aside the Default Judgement dated July 2017 as it was not properly served at my current address;
    · Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
    · Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

    1. Default Judgement
    1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in July 2017. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until November 2017 when I was doing a routine check on my credit file. I understand that this Claim was served at previous address (xxxxx). However, I moved to a new address in April 2017. In support of this I can provide confirmation from xxxxx County Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax. The Claimant did not show reasonable diligence in finding a current address when applying to the courts and thus I did not receive any correspondence regarding this matter. The constant failure by companies to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary anxiety and grievance for many people in the U.K. Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald pointed this out in December 2016 when stated:

    "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address."

    1.2. I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to challenge the Claimant’s claim. The reason the PCN was issued was for an overstay on the car park of some 14 minutes. Had I have received the original Notice To Keeper I would have appealed at that time.

    1.3. On the 24/11/2017 I contacted Northampton County Court to request information regarding the Default Judgement. I immediately, also on 24/11/207 contacted NWCP for further information. As the registered keeper of the vehicle i have taken steps to revolve this matter as soon as I became aware.

    1.4. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.



    2. Order dismissing the Claim

    2.1. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

    2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice’’, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

    2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

    2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

    2.5. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:
    2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.
    2.5.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
    2.5.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.
    2.5.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.
    2.6. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
    2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
    • SD200
    • By SD200 29th Nov 17, 12:15 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SD200
    For anyone following this thread, I have spent the evening reading POFA 2012, specifically the Notice to Keeper section. NWCP do not follow POFA or didn’t at the time this PCN was issued. I was emailed from NWCP today all correspondence relating to this PCN and the wording of their NtK omits:

    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—
    (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) 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,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available.

    This proves NWCP cannot pursue the keeper under POFA as they don’t adhere to it. They now need to prove I was driving the vehicle, which I wasn’t.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Nov 17, 11:28 AM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    2.5.2 - where did you drag up no loss from?

    set asides from 2017, or defences from 2017
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 11:52 AM
    • 15,915 Posts
    • 24,673 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    For anyone following this thread, I have spent the evening reading POFA 2012, specifically the Notice to Keeper section. NWCP do not follow POFA or didn’t at the time this PCN was issued. I was emailed from NWCP today all correspondence relating to this PCN and the wording of their NtK omits:
    Originally posted by SD200
    If you are dealing with NWCP, why are you quoting from Civil Enforcement Limited?

    2.5.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.
    And, if as it seems likely you have used an old CEL case to copy and paste from and have done seemingly only scant proof reading, are you sure that other points you make - like the non-compliance of their NtK - are factually correct?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • SD200
    • By SD200 2nd Dec 17, 7:26 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    SD200
    I have taken on board what posters have said and rewritten my supporting statement. I'm due to file it on Monday so would appreciate any further comments.

    Claim Number xxxxxx


    Supporting Statement


    I am xxxxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.

    This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 29/11/17 to:

    · Set aside the Default Judgement xxxx dated xxxxx as it was not properly served at my current address;
    · Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;
    · Order for the original claim to be dismissed.


    Default Judgement


    1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in xxx 2017. I became aware of this matter on 24th Novemberr 2017 when undertaking a routine credit report check. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until November 2017 when I was doing a routine check on my credit file. I understand that this Claim was served at previous address xxxxxxx. However, I moved to a new address, xxxx in April 2017. In support of this I can provide confirmation from xxxxxx County Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax. The Claimant did not show reasonable diligence in finding a current address when applying to the courts and thus I did not receive any correspondence regarding this matter. It would have been reasonable to expect the Claimant when, having received no reply to any correspondence they sent to assume I no longer resided there, and to spend a matter of minutes in obtaining the correct address for me. The constant failure by companies to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary anxiety and grievance for many people in the U.K. Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald pointed this out in December 2016 when stated:

    "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.”

    1.2 From my recent email to NWCP LTD I note from the evidence they have supplied me that a check was made to DVLA on xxxx. I have attached a copy of this please refer to ‘evidence 1’ Subsequent correspondence was sent to my previous address, but I have not received any of this. The Claimant has not shown reasonable diligence in trying to contact me at a correct address when the claim to court was some 4 months after this original contact with the DVLA.



    1.3 The Vehicle this parking charge notice refers to was advertised for sale during the time of my move of address, and as I didn’t want to be without the logbook while waiting for the DVLA, which can take up to 6 weeks to reissue with my new address I did not change it. The vehicle wasn’t being driven and was parked on my drive as it was valeted and ready for sale. The vehicle eventually sold in July 2017 and I have an email from ebay in support of this. I can also provide information to support this from the DVLA.

    1.4 I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to challenge the Claimant’s claim. The reason the PCN was issued was for an overstay on the car park of some 14 minutes. The Driver of the vehicle had bought and paid for a parking ticket for several hours but due to unforeseen circumstances was unable to return to the vehicle in the time paid for. Had I have received the original Notice To Keeper I, as registered keeper of the vehicle would have appealed at that time.

    1.5. On the 24/11/2017 I contacted Northampton County Court to request information regarding the Default Judgement. I immediately, also on 24/11/207 contacted NWCP for further information. As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have taken steps to revolve this matter as soon as I became aware.

    2. Order dismissing the Claim

    2.1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
    However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

    2.1.1 I, xxxxxxx was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

    2.1.2 There is more than one person named on the insurance policy of the vehicle this relates to, and in any case anyone with comprehensive insurance could have driven this vehicle.

    2.2. I believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

    2.3. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice’’, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

    2.4. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant does not provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

    2.5. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording. NWCP does not in their wording strictly comply with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, and I quote directly from the POFA 2012:

    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—
    (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) 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, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available.

    May I refer you to ‘evidence 2’ showing the Notice to Keeper NWCP emailed to me on 24/11/2017.

    This is the position on private land according to the applicable law, as confirmed by the experienced PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister Henry Michael Greenslade who confirmed in 2015:

    ''Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    2.6 The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

    2.7.. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to North West Car Parks Ltd.
    a) North West Car Parks Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
    b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

    2.7. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    2.8. Therefore I respectfully ask the Court to set aside the judgement and strike out the claim in its entirety.
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

2,253Posts Today

7,119Users online

Martin's Twitter