Summoned to small claims court

The_Slithy_Tove

Davidtomdavid wrote: »

Thanks all for advice so far. Day in court this week.

If your court date really is this week, then it's a bit of a worry that you are asking some fairly basic questions, which suggests that you haven't submitted a particularly strong defence.

But anyway...

Davidtomdavid wrote: »

In PPC witness statement they admit only 3 PCNs can be pursued to myself as keeper due to POFA but they have the right to assume I am the driver? Is this the case? How do i counter this?

They can assume all they like. However, they would have to prove "on the balance of probabilities" that you were in order to convince a judge. So you must challenge them on this.

Davidtomdavid wrote: »

Also, from their evidence, one of the photos merely displays the windscreen with the tax disk (therefore number plate) and the PCN stuck to windscreen. Is this insufficient evidence to show where the car was parked at that time?

Clearly it doesn't. But if the car was parked there, then you'd be foolish to attempt to deny it. Surely that is not in dispute.

Davidtomdavid wrote: »

Finally, two of the PCNs were issued 24 hours apart. The two photos show the vehicle parked in exactly the same spot. Somehow 2 PCNs have been issued for the same period of parking (it's residential so not unreasonable to be parked for 24 hours or more). Is there any legislation I should point the court to denonstrate that 2 PCNs cannot be issued for one period of parking??

What do the signs say? The signage is important to many parts of your defence, e.g. does it make an offer of parking (a quite separate point is that they probably don't have the authority to offer parking, as the right to park is already granted by virtue of the residents' leases), and does it mention anything about per-day charges?

Redx

what worries me is that normally there is a deadline given by the court for these submissions and defence points , so all of this should have already been addressed and before the court some time ago AFAIK

but its good to get your ducks in a row for the actual court appearance, for any verbal exchanges, which I believe normally have to follow what was in writing, but it has been known for last minute submissions to be foisted unto the defendants just before the hearing , which I believe is why they tie up their bundles to stop it happening

Coupon-mad

In PPC witness statement they admit only 3 PCNs can be pursued to myself as keeper due to POFA but they have the right to assume I am the driver? Is this the case? How do i counter this?

You need to read Elliott v Loake because that's the case they will try to rely upon. The differences being that was a criminal case where there was significant evidence that he was the driver - caught in the act I think in some ways - certainly enough to satisfy the court.

In your case you can say that this was months ago and you cannot be sure who actually parked the vehicle on these days because more than one person in the family can drive your car and could have parked it on those occasions (could easily have been different drivers, so the POFA has to come into play if Link are to hold you liable for all these PCNs). You don't have to elaborate - it is not dependent upon who is named on the insurance because a family member with fully comp insurance can certainly drive other cars. Nor do you have to prove you were elsewhere but don't lie, just remind the Claimant the case against you is for them to prove.

Your counter (being careful not to appear in any way evasive) is that the burden for evidence remains with the claimant to prove their case - and the evidence is not there - with this as well:

one of the photos merely displays the windscreen with the tax disk (therefore number plate) and the PCN stuck to windscreen. Is this insufficient evidence to show where the car was parked at that time?

Do not lie in court but you can certainly say you cannot be sure from the evidence shown by the claimant, who parked the car and/or where it was parked in relation to the signs or even whether those signs were there at the material time (if they are relying on undated photos or pics taken much later).

Be careful not to get tripped up if relying on 'not being sure who parked' so don't be drawn by the Claimant asking why PCNs were ignored. You are the keeper appellant and can only say that you and your family (other drivers) considered the PCNs a scam from a non-regulated firm with unclear signs/no signs in places so followed advice from Watchdog a few years ago, not to respond. Also when you investigated after getting NTKs in the post, you realised this was a new firm to the IPC Trade Body who were using NTKs incapable of keeper liability (you will have to explain why, using paragraph 8 of Schedule 4) so you had no reason to respond to such spurious documents.

Google 'Parking Prankster Link v Cowles' to get an idea of how to steer the hearing in your favour, if you get a chance. Concerned about your defence though:

My evidence consisted of copies of NTKs, copy of POFA and copy of Beavis ruling.

We would be concerned if you have not got any pictures of the signs yourself in your defence or if you are not clear in what way the Link PCN/NTK do not comply (hope you are au fait with Schedule 4 paragraph 8 because it will be new to the Judge I expect). Signage could be key.

Are you ready to counter the Beavis argument as well, to say there is no evidence of any 'legitimate interest' which could allow a third party to claim a disproportionate charge for parking where there is (allegedly, according to them) no licence to park at all without a permit. Also the sum of the parking charge was not prominently displayed in 96 point lettering as it was in Beavis, so this is not a contract a driver can be assumed to have seen on that site, from the lack of very clear signs.

That makes it completely different from the Beavis case, which was about an agreed contract to enable parking, where drivers were contractually obliged to pay £85 as a quid-pro-quo payment after 2 hours free. And the signage was scrutinised and considered to be prominent, plentiful, creating a clear contract/licence to allow drivers to park (not like in your case then where there was no contract formed).

You should go through the Beavis case decision and pick out & highlight/mark for yourself on the 3 copies you are taking to court* the references to trespass where it reiterates the fact that it is trite law that only the landowner in occupation can claim for trespass/unauthorised parking and that sum would be limited to the nominal 'value' of the space, or damages claimable by a landowner only.



*take 3 copies of your evidence bundle with everything numbered and sorted nicely, so you can helpfully hand over a copy to the Judge and the Claimant (if needed) as you raise an issue covered by the defence you submitted.