Defending Ticket - Minster Bay Watch & Gladstone

brexit33

Hello,

I have been issued with a claim from the county court business centre Northampton for £295 for parking at Reel Cinema Blossom Street York YO24 1AJ on the 16/08/16 & 20/08/16. The claimant is Minster Bay Watch.

First I have submitted my personal defence which is that I wasn't the driver at the time and given them the name and address of my partner who admits she was driving at the time. I assume they will re-submit the claim under her name.

I've checked the planning applications for that area:

1) There appears to be some discrepancy in the signage, they have put more signs up than the planning application allows.

2) They do not yet have planning permission for their APNR cameras. An application was submitted on the 11/10/2016 ("Installation of wall mounted automated number plate recognition camera to southwest elevation of cinema building (retrospective)") and is currently under review. The photos from the camera are their only evidence and no ticket was left on vehicle. This is a conservation area so planning is necessary.

Do people think its worth contesting the ticket with the above evidence?

Thanks

Ralph-y

hi and welcome to the forum ....


"First I have submitted my personal defence which is that I wasn't the driver at the time and given them the name and address of my partner who admits she was driving at the time. I assume they will re-submit the claim under her name."


who did you send this to ?

Ralph:cool:

pappa_golf

you have contacted the BPA and asked them if they have audited this site , when they reply yes , you can then ask questions as per legality of ANPR system

brexit33

Ralph-y wrote: »

who did you send this to ?

Ralph:cool:

I submitted it as a defence on the moneyclaim.gov website. I hope i'm not too late with this defence because she genuinely was driving. She also has a valid defence in that she was attending an emergency dentist appointment and pregnant. She can prove this in court if necessary.

I thought multiple angles - with the planning argument - would be better though.

you have contacted the BPA and asked them if they have audited this site , when they reply yes , you can then ask questions as per legality of ANPR system

I will try that and see what they say.

Thanks!

Carthesis

brexit33 wrote: »

First I have submitted my personal defence which is that I wasn't the driver at the time and given them the name and address of my partner who admits she was driving at the time.

Why on EARTH have you done this??

All you've done is made sure that your partner is going to end up with the stress and expense of dealing with this!

You've parked there on 2 separate occasions - 2 emergency dentists appointments 4 days apart?

The planning application issue etc. won't help you in small claims.

steve1500

Carthesis wrote: »

The planning application issue etc. won't help you in small claims.[/QUOTE

Am I missing something?


If the camera shouldn't have been there how can they use it as evidence.


This is the picture we took illegally

The_Slithy_Tove

brexit33 wrote: »

I submitted it as a defence on the moneyclaim.gov website. I hope i'm not too late with this defence because she genuinely was driving. She also has a valid defence in that she was attending an emergency dentist appointment and pregnant. She can prove this in court if necessary.

I thought multiple angles - with the planning argument - would be better though.

Oh dear! If this is your defence in what is an actual court claim (it's not an "appeal" or anything like that) then you are going to struggle.

If (though unlikely) they have conformed to Schedule 4 of POFA, then YOU as keeper are liable, as you didn't tell them who was driving before legal proceedings started. And even if they haven't conformed to POFA, you didn't say so in your defence, so will have an uphill struggle now including it.

Planning permission or not isn't a legal point, so is irrelevant in what is meant to be a defence to legal proceedings, based on legal points.

brexit33

Carthesis wrote: »

Why on EARTH have you done this??

All you've done is made sure that your partner is going to end up with the stress and expense of dealing with this!

Then main reason is I dont want a CCJ in my name. It seems to parking company complied with POFA 2012 to pursue me as the registered keeper. The problem is she threw the letters out (living at the same address we share post) because she thought it would go away. The first letter I received was the money claim - If I had known I never would have let it get this far.

POFA states:

"(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales."

She is willing to state in court that she threw out the letters.

Carthesis wrote: »

You've parked there on 2 separate occasions - 2 emergency dentists appointments 4 days apart?

The planning application issue etc. won't help you in small claims.

All you've done is made sure that your partner is going to end up with the stress and expense of dealing with this!

I don't know why but pregnant women have a more trouble with their teeth for some reason. She can get the dentistry to write a letter confirming they were emergency appointments. The dentist office is right across the street from car parking and there is not much other parking nearby. Being about ~35 weeks pregnant at the time she couldn't walk far.

Do you not think she can use this as a mitigating circumstance? Perhaps when they resubmit the claim in her name she can just settle it. Either way I don't want a CCJ in my name.

brexit33

Also its worth noting regarding the planning argument. Not only is it a conservation area. The building they have installed to camera on is grade 2 listed and its an offence to carry out unauthorised works on a listed building.

Coupon-mad

brexit33 wrote: »

Also its worth noting regarding the planning argument. Not only is it a conservation area. The building they have installed to camera on is grade 2 listed and its an offence to carry out unauthorised works on a listed building.

You can't use arguments not already touched upon in the defence. What did your 'defence' actually say??

Do you not think she can use this as a mitigating circumstance? Perhaps when they resubmit the claim in her name she can just settle it. Either way I don't want a CCJ in my name.

They won't resubmit the claim in her name. Claim stage is TOO LATE to name the driver.

This will continue in your name and you get NO CCJ AT ALL so stop worrying. However you may end up losing and paying them as your defence is weak. No CCJ though so you may as well fight unless this takes up so much of your time that you will lose more money/huge amounts of sleep over it (you will have to attend a hearing in 2017 to defend this and we can help with that defence bundle stage with suggestions for evidence - but only if you stated them in the defence).

However, I am dreading your answer, did you even put ANYTHING else in the defence box (signage issues, planning permission, the fact there was no contract, the fact they do not own the car park)?

If you have merely relied upon 'I was not the driver, here are her details' then you are defending this at a hearing on ONE point alone and that will be whether or not MB have complied with the POFA 2012 to hold a keeper liable. That's not good at all as a defence - if as I recall, MB's Notice to Keeper letters are not awful and make a stab at the POFA wording.

Can you show us the NTK please (cover your name & address & VRN/PCN numbers). This is the letter that first arrived - they may have called it a 'PCN'. I guess you can't due to this below:

She is willing to state in court that she threw out the letters.

No point, they (the Claimants later on - before the hearing - have to produce the PCN and letters in their evidence, so she can then expose them as not compliant with the tiny, tiny little list of requirements under the POFA Sch4 para 8 or 9. Really nor daunting - a very minor game of spot the difference - so her defence now MUST allege that as keeper she is not liable (she is the recipient named on the claim, yes?).

And is this a claim from GLADSTONES SOLICITORS or other solicitor on behalf of MB?

And was this a residents block of flats 'permit' car park, or what? Employer car park? Retail where the driver was shopping?

Carthesis

steve1500 wrote: »

Am I missing something?


If the camera shouldn't have been there how can they use it as evidence.


This is the picture we took illegally

Yes, you are.

What you're missing is that, unlike advertising consent for signs, planning permission can be applied for retrospectively. Therefore by having the cameras up while the PP is still being processed doesn't mean anything. Secondly, it's not related in fact to the point being contested.

It won't help at all. The judge will simply ignore it, I'm sure.

brexit33 wrote: »

Then main reason is I dont want a CCJ in my name. It seems to parking company complied with POFA 2012 to pursue me as the registered keeper. The problem is she threw the letters out (living at the same address we share post) because she thought it would go away. The first letter I received was the money claim - If I had known I never would have let it get this far.

POFA states:

"(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales."

She is willing to state in court that she threw out the letters.

Also irrelevant. I'm willing to bet 100% that the NTKs were not POFA-compliant. The vast majority aren't, despite how simple it is to achieve. The fact she is prepared to admit she threw them out isn't a defence. The fact she did so hoping it "would go away" most certainly isn't. This won't get you anywhere or do anything.

brexit33 wrote: »

I don't know why but pregnant women have a more trouble with their teeth for some reason. She can get the dentistry to write a letter confirming they were emergency appointments. The dentist office is right across the street from car parking and there is not much other parking nearby. Being about ~35 weeks pregnant at the time she couldn't walk far.

Do you not think she can use this as a mitigating circumstance? Perhaps when they resubmit the claim in her name she can just settle it. Either way I don't want a CCJ in my name.

The Equalities Act requires companies to make "reasonable adjustments" for people with protected characteristics, of which pregnancy is one. This means things like extended grace periods; making sure signage is in sufficiently sized letters for partially-sighted people; sufficient wheelchair parking bays and wheelchair-accessible machines, that sort of thing.

What it doesn't mean is "free licence to park whereever you feel like out of convenience" I'm afraid.

While the first appointment may well have been an emergency, i doubt it was likely to be life-threatening to either mother or unborn child. Therefore I very much doubt this is a level of mitigation that would be sufficient for the case to be thrown out.

And as for the CCJ - well, I'm afraid to say you are *EXACTLY* the kind of person these companies hope for. You've fallen for the party line without checking first, and by naming the driver you've pretty much cut off any simple appeal point you might have had.

YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO NAME THE DRIVER - NOT EVEN IN SMALL-CLAIMS COURT IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE.

YOU DON'T *AUTOMATICALLY* GET A CCJ IF YOU LOSE - THAT ONLY HAPPENS IF YOU LOSE, ARE ORDERED TO PAY, REFUSE, AND THEN THE CLAIMANT SEEKS A PAYMENT ORDER. IF YOU LOSE AND PAY UP, THEN IT'S GAME-OVER FOR A ADDITIONAL INCURRED LOSS OF ABOUT £50 TOPS.