Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them

anicecuppa

"Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's indentity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver."
May I ask an opinion on this, 'for a friend'
In a case I am aware of there has been a claim made to the keeper.  There are a number of very small ways in which it falls short of POFA and so it may be possible to defend on that basis.  But is there any point in doing so if another aspect of defence would be to do with the unreasonableness of the charge given the brevity of the visit.  The only way they can support that is by acknowledging that they were actually driving on that occasion.  Does that make any sense?

Le_Kirk

You would be better of starting a new thread rather than jumping on this old one from 2016.  That way bespoke advice can be given.

tenchy

Apologies if already mentioned, but I'm wondering about this one:

Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's identity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver.

Surely THEY must show that you were driving, or is it assumed that you were? Is a statement from the keeper to the effect that he wasn't driving, good enough?

KeithP

@tenchy, best you ask that question on your own thread, but in summary, you are right. There is however, a caveat.

DTP93

hoohoo said:

Castle wrote: »

Bargepole:
Have you seen any pay and display cases come before the courts?

There have been some, but these were not won on distinguishing from Beavis, but that there was an error with the payment machine.

Possible Winning points

P&D Machine error
Visited twice and ANPR error
Resident parking and lease gives permission to park
Bad signage (but only if it is bad signage)
Signage is forbidding, so there was not contract to break. A trespass occurred instead.
Not the driver and POFA was not followed
Landowner gave prior permission to park
Frustration of contract due to illness/breakdown
Equality Act 2010 applies

There are other possible winning points and so this is not exhaustive. It has to be said these are not guaranteed wins either. Small claims is a lottery and there are good and bad judges just like in every profession.

I think it fair to say that parking law is actually one of the most complicated areas of the law with so many nuances and twists, and a lot of the DDJs just don't understand it.

Hi, you mention P&D Machine error - this was my issue. 

I stayed one night at a hotel, tried to pay on the day and the machine didn't process the payment (not an issue with my card). I told staff and they said pay next day when I leave. But the machine didn't work again. I was rushing, so I just left. But this was June 2022. I've got an official money claim form (not CCJ) via DCLegal on behalf of ParkingEye last week. I've done the AOS. 

I know my defence is weak, I've no proof and staff obviously can't remember me telling them about the machine.

Can I still use the P&D Machine error as my defence? I assume it's still worth fighting because as I've read on the NEWBIES post that it's always worth fighting until it's been decided either way. 

Fruitcake

DTP93 said:

hoohoo said:

Castle wrote: »

Bargepole:
Have you seen any pay and display cases come before the courts?

There have been some, but these were not won on distinguishing from Beavis, but that there was an error with the payment machine.

Possible Winning points

P&D Machine error
Visited twice and ANPR error
Resident parking and lease gives permission to park
Bad signage (but only if it is bad signage)
Signage is forbidding, so there was not contract to break. A trespass occurred instead.
Not the driver and POFA was not followed
Landowner gave prior permission to park
Frustration of contract due to illness/breakdown
Equality Act 2010 applies

There are other possible winning points and so this is not exhaustive. It has to be said these are not guaranteed wins either. Small claims is a lottery and there are good and bad judges just like in every profession.

I think it fair to say that parking law is actually one of the most complicated areas of the law with so many nuances and twists, and a lot of the DDJs just don't understand it.

Hi, you mention P&D Machine error - this was my issue. 

I stayed one night at a hotel, tried to pay on the day and the machine didn't process the payment (not an issue with my card). I told staff and they said pay next day when I leave. But the machine didn't work again. I was rushing, so I just left. But this was June 2022. I've got an official money claim form (not CCJ) via DCLegal on behalf of ParkingEye last week. I've done the AOS. 

I know my defence is weak, I've no proof and staff obviously can't remember me telling them about the machine.

Can I still use the P&D Machine error as my defence? I assume it's still worth fighting because as I've read on the NEWBIES post that it's always worth fighting until it's been decided either way. 

Yes, it's always worth fighting.

What happened when you complained to the landowner and your MP? That is always Plan A, and it is never too late to do so.

You should read the guide to court written by bargepole you will find in the NEWBIES combined with the template defence thread that includes a twelve step guide.

Once you have read them, you should start your own thread and give us more information about the alleged event and the lead up to a court claim. Amongst other things, tell us what is stated in the particulars of claim

KeithP

Welcome to the forum @DTP93.

Your best bet is to start a new thread about your particular incident. Resurrecting this ancient thread will not help you and could easily lead to confusion.

In your new thread, not here, please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form.