What options do I have?

Joe_Bloggss

Any advice on this please?

Exhibits of which I intend to rely upon are as follows:
Ex. 1 Defence Statement
Ex. 2 Notice to Keeper
Ex. 3 Excerpt from Barrister Henry Greenslade on ‘Keeper Liability’ POLPA annual report, 2015
Ex. 4 Copy of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Ex. 5 Photo showing inadequate signage at entrance despite site plan claiming there is one
Ex. 6 Photo showing example of sign in this area clearly not readable or able to be understood
Ex. 7 Photo showing another example of sign in this area clearly not readable or able to be understood
Ex. 8 Video showing route taken for a car to park in this private land, note no signs visible for driver
Ex. 9 Site plan highlighted to show errors in plan
Ex. 10 Letter Before Claim

1. The facts of the case are as set out in my Statement of Defence, filed in response to the original claim and verified by a statement of truth. They do not bear further repetition here, but by this statement I now adduce evidence in order to prove my case. A copy of the statement of defence can be seen in (Exhibit 1).
2. It is admitted that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question, but I do not admit who the driver was at the time of the notice being received. With my line of work there are at least 10 people possible that could have driven this vehicle and I was unaware of this penalty charge notice (PCN) until the notice to keeper (NTK) was received. Please see (Exhibit 2) for a copy of this.
3. By the time the NTK was received I was unable to ascertain who was driving the vehicle given the period of time between the charge and the receiving of the NTK.
4. When I received this NTK I quickly acted to understand what this was for and what could be done about it. As per my defence I did not challenge this PCN as it is widely known and accepted that the IAS is far to weighted in the favour of parking operators, hopeless for consumers who are expected to bear the burden of proof (even of information not within their knowledge) and are left with no options but to pay or be sued, regardless of contract, liability or basis for a claim in law.
5. The claimant intends to use Elliott v Loake 1983 in that the registered keeper of the vehicle can be presumed to have been driving unless the defendant can sufficiently rebut this presumption. No evidence has been supplied by this Claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under POFA 2012, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land, nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name the driver.
6. I wish to draw your attention to Barrister and POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) Lead Adjudicator’s Henry Greenslade’s words in the 2015 POPLA Annual report. - “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (Exhibit 3)
7. The claimant has expressed their desire to pursue myself as the Registered Keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: ‘The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle’.
8. I wish to draw your attention to my defence statement (Exhibit 1) paragraph 5.b) which states that the creditor must adhere to all parts within the Schedule 4 POFA and that any omissions from this Schedule will warrant those claims noncompliant. A copy of the Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been attached (Exhibit 4)
9. The claimant relies on ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 in that a valid contract can be made by an offer in form of terms and conditions set out on the sign.
10. I contest that the claimant must ensure that all signs are compliant with the IPC – Code of Practice. This is in which the signage must be clear and precise and be at a good level so that motorist can see these from their vehicle. There should also be a level of signage set from the entrance to ensure drivers are fully aware when entering the private land. Please see (Exhibit 5, 6 & 7).
11. Having not been to this site I decided to take an example video of what a drivers view would look like entering this private land. Lack of entrance signage and signage clearly damaged would make it very difficult for any driver to understand what the terms and conditions are, please see (Exhibit 8).
12. The Claimant has referred to a site plan showing the sufficient signs on the relevant land. I would questions the validity of this site plan seeing as this plan claims that they have signs placed within the rear gardens of certain houses as well as signs placed in which they are not. Please see (Exhibit 9) for reference of this. Please also see again (Exhibit 5) showing no signage at the entrance despite the site plan stating there is.
13. I challenge this site plans validity for the claimant to prove that on the date of this PCN the signs stated were in place. It cannot be taken as fact that this site plan is accurate and therefore these signs are in place given that it has already been shown that this site plan is invalid. It can therefore not be shown that any contract can be made between the driver and the claimant of which there can be no charge placed to be claimed.

Joe_Bloggss

Bump this up. Need to be sending this soon and didn't know if any good.

Joe_Bloggss

Any response to the above please?