County Court help please!

Coupon-mad

The Uni as leaseholder could have cause to pursue a trespasser because leasehold title of the site gives them standing. But the parking firm could not sue for a charge for trespass, and the PE v Beavis case actually says this in the decision, which helps that argument.

However the contract is offered to people apart from permit holders, who pay & display. Did the driver pay an display each time? If so then I would say they arguably contravened the rules they accepted by paying the consideration of the parking fee, in exchange for the right to park in a proper bay.

So I don't think you can argue trespass. See what others say. I'm only an armchair lawyer (i.e. not qualified in law) as are most of us.

But as you are the keeper who does NOT drive that car, you can defend this with the POFA 2012 schedule 4 keeper liability being your main point. Whether or not the driver parked badly, the law says there is only one way a parking firm can pursue a keeper for the actions of a driver and that's with POFA compliant Notices, not half-arsed attempts which omit statutory wording and warnings about liability.

I would defend this if this was my DD parking a car I am keeper of, there at Uni (not that she goes to that one).

mjc126

The driver didn't make any payment on any occasion.
I read the rules that you have to have to obtain a permit whether you're a visitor, staff or student and then pay for a validation ticket (pay and display) on top. 'For the avoidance of doubt, a Validation Ticket on its own (i.e. without a Validation Permit) does not constitute a valid permit allowing users to park on the campus'.

System

the driver didn't make any payment on any occasion.

Was the driver a permit holder (and therefore bound by the "rules") or were they a non-permit holder and bound by the content of the signs.

The status of the driver is important in determining which contact was broken. Was it the one made when a permit was taken out - which lasts for the duration of the permit. Or was it an ad-hoc one which occurred every time the driver parked.

However as SRM points out, your issue is not whether the driver was at fault. That's not for you to worry about if they did not transfer liability.

mjc126

After I'd posted I realised I was labouring a point that wasn't my problem! In answer - at the time there was no valid permit (there had been one the previous year but that had expired). As a student there probably should have been a permit as it appears all students have to have one to park on site - at the time the driver was still (just) a student.
I'll get on with my part 18 and defense and post it up here.
Thank you all.

mjc126

[FONT=&quot]Good evening.
I have put together my Part 18 - is this sufficient or should I adjust it any way? Your feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have received a County Court claim concerning an alleged debt to your company. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please provide the following information, in addition to any other evidence you intend to rely on in court. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Confirm if the registered keeper is being held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A copy of the full un-redacted contract that Total Parking Solutions had in place with the landowner or leaseholder at the time of the alleged parking event.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A full financial breakdown as to how the alleged debt has been calculated.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Copies of the original PCNs that you say were issued at the times claimed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Time stamped photos of the vehicle in question detailing the periods claimed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Copies of any notices to keeper or notification letters to keeper that you have sent to the registered keeper.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Copies of all the signs and their location within the site at the time of the alleged parking event.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Please ensure this detail provides proof that the signs upon which you rely for a 'contract' include clear warnings, in large lettering, regarding the £90 and the specific administration and other fees that you now seek to add.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Details of the installation and maintenance regime for the signs at the location.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please provide this information within seven days in order that I can provide a full defence. If I do not receive a reply, you should be aware that any subsequent claim you may raise will reference this letter with regards to having your case struck out for want a cause of action, or having you re-plead your case, and/or costs for having to defend an unfounded and unproven case that could have been settled by other means.[/FONT]

mjc126

If anyone might be available to glance over the above - just wondered if I've gone along the right lines for Part 18? I'm working on my defense tonight. Many thanks

Coupon-mad

I think you will get none of the above. Certainly no documents, you will be fobbed off. I wouldn't bother with Part 18, just a defence.

mjc126

OK. I'll get a wriggle on with the defense now then and post it up when it's ready. Thank you for coming back to me.

mjc126

[FONT=&quot]Hello. I have put together my defence, if someone might have a moment to check it over I'd really appreciate it. I'm sure it can be improved! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is admitted that the Defendant is the owner of (vehicle)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant does not drive the vehicle and so was not the driver of the vehicle on the dates in question.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . The Defendant was unaware of 3 PCNs and was not the driver, as such the registered keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of a £70 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In particular the notice to keeper does not comply with these clauses[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.2(a)specify the period of parking to which the notice relates[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.2(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.2(e ii) invite, if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.2(g)[/FONT]inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

[FONT=&quot]As the Defendant has seen no evidence that the 3 PCNs were a valid Notice to Driver, the Defendant cannot know if the following point has been complied with[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.2(c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f).[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]4. The POFA requires in clause 2.(3) 'adequate notice' of the parking charge at the site and to adhere to[/FONT][FONT=&quot] appropriate national authority regulations[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is believed that the signage on site at the time did not have [/FONT][FONT=&quot]conspicuous and legible[/FONT][FONT=&quot] detail of the charge. The detail was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in the smallest font on a large sign so lost in amongst a lot of other information, consequently being hidden in the small print and not 'prominent' in 'large lettering' as was found in the binding case of 'ParkingEye v Beavis'. There appears to be a small sign beside the bay that makes no mention of any charge.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clause 4(5) of the POFA states that ‘the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d).’ The additional costs of £20 on each PCN are not recoverable from the Defendant. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This was found in the case of Parking Eye 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'.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim do not give a breakdown of how the £270 has been calculated.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2012 – Version 5 October 2014, being in place at the time of the alleged parking events[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. They have not followed the Letter of Notification to Keeper requirement in Section 23.4.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Defendant has requested on two occasions that this matter be dealt with by Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced, thereby limiting any further costs and the court’s time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I [/FONT][FONT=&quot]deny any liability for any sum being due at all to this claimant[/FONT] and confirm that where stated facts are given within this defence that they are true.[FONT=&quot] I ask the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I would add one about 'no standing' as they don't own the car park and there is no evidence of authority flowing from the landowner which enables an agent to sue visitors in their own name.

And if the photos of the dashboard are inconclusive, you could have a defence point putting them to strict proof of a contravention taking place on each occasion. No clear evidence of lack of validation ticket (pay and display), permit or Blue Badge and no evidence of a fair time allowed in the event that the driver was just fetching a permit/ticket at the time, from adjacent premises.

Could lead you to saying no evidence of any grace period being allowed whilst a validation ticket/permit was obtained.