County Court help please!

mjc126

Sorry coupon-mad - I've tried all sorts of different combinations - everytime I get a message saying I can't put up links. - or am I being really thick - and you mean just the combination of letters/numbers -

Coupon-mad

Most newbies just change http to hxxp and/or put some gaps in the link.

mjc126

[FONT=&quot]/sh/wjqkrzuq38cji4u/AADVm3ezWBsTzkbBqKBP7_pJa?dl=0 These are the combination of the link and they're in dropbox if you might be able to link them together.
[/FONT]

Umkomaas

Nothing in that works. Try Photobucket or TinyPic if Dropbox won't work. Nobody has had problems previously with either of these.

Can you swerve the fancy font?

baza52

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wjqkrzuq38cji4u/AADVm3ezWBsTzkbBqKBP7_pJa?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Yes that worked:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wjqkrzuq38cji4u/AADVm3ezWBsTzkbBqKBP7_pJa?dl=0

OK so the NTKs are not compliant with the POFA because (not an exhaustive list):

- it doesn't say that they do not have the name and address of the driver
- it does not invite the recipient to pay or give the name and address of the driver and pass the notice onto the driver

See para 8 of the POFA Schedule 4 and check out the omissions; it is a bad attempt at a POFA Notice but the wording is prescribed and mandatory under the Act, not optional. So they can't hold a keeper liable, even though they are trying because they hope you don't know that or would fail to argue it well at a hearing.

Also the POFA requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge at £70 a pop and yet the little sign beside the bays says nothing about any charge at all and the large main sign has the charge in the smallest font of all, so it is hidden in the small print and not 'prominent' in 'large lettering' as was found in the binding case of 'ParkingEye v Beavis'.

And the POFA pins the sum that can be recovered - if a NTK was deemed compliant - to the sum on the NTK which is £70 a pop, not £90 which is what the sum has suddenly morphed into on the claim form. They can't even point to that dreadful large (very wordy) sign of small print about 'added costs for debt collection' because the POFA prevents this being recoverable, as does ParkingEye v Somerfield where debt collector added costs of £60 were seen as an unrecoverable penalty with no cause to be added to a 'parking charge'.

And the signs do not state a sum to add for this alleged 'debt recovery' anyway so they can't pluck £20 a pop out of nowhere which is highly unlikely to have ever been actually paid to any debt collector firm. Additionally, the Particulars of Claim fail to quantify it at all. There is no breakdown of how they've arrived at £270 - I have kind of assumed 'debt collector or admin fees' but the claim doesn't say.

Not sure who Preeya Jadeja(?) is whose name is on the claim form, seeing as the Claimant is TPS and she doesn't appear to have stated her position in the company and neither does she appear to be their solicitor. Did you get a letter prior to the claim form with her name on?

mjc126

Thank you for sorting the link for me baza52 and thank you for trying umkomaas - sorry to have been a pain.

Thank you so much for that coupon-mad - do you not sleep? That gives me something to work on. I guess in the part 18 I just ask for copies of everything possible, even if I've had it before - as per the examples others have used in other threads?

All other correspondence I've had just came from either Parking Control department, TPS or Premier with no names ever given.

[FONT=&quot]I also wondered if the following points might be relevant? As the PCNs were issued in June 15, BPA CoP 2012 Version 5 was in place at the time, (section 23.4a&b). I only ever received a reminder and final reminder - no notification letter was received.

The third PCN being 'incorrectly positioned' is in fact apparently overstaying in a 30min parking area - but the reminder doesn't state any time periods - just the contravention time - is that noteworthy? In fact there are no periods of time on any of the reminders.

Another point - on the sign - 'By failing to comply with the above terms of use you agree to pay a parking charge of £70 (reduced to £35 if paid in 14 days)' - does this make it forbidding, so without a permit the driver was in fact trespassing so no contract? (As per parking prankster on 9 May involving Bargepole).

I believe the Uni only lease the land, so are not the landowner.

Thank you. I really wish I'd signed up here earlier, would have saved so much time faffing around.
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Thank you so much for that coupon-mad - do you not sleep?

LOL! It's been said before!

System

The "rules" for you to check against.

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/regulations/parking-terms-and-conditions

mjc126

So, if I've read the 'rules' correctly, the driver should have had a uni vehicle permit regardless and, as I know, shouldn't have parked in the disabled bay anyway. Having not followed the rules, does that make it trespass, 'because the signage displayed clearly only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed'? 'As parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder' and neither the Uni or TPS are the freeholder then there is no claim? parking-prankster blogspot co uk 2016/05 bargepole-spanks-UKPC-in-court refers