We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gladstones Court Papers
Options
airman1232
Posts: 58 Forumite
Hi All,
I have recieved court papers and have acknowledged and stated I will defend.
This was a PCN from AM Parking, back in 08/2014, I recieved the NTK (Notice to Owner - https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203572962-AM-Parking-Services-Ltd) was recieved on 01/15 - Over 59 days. Info was requested from DVLA on 12/2014.
This is the location discussed here before:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5515243
Below is my defence, I am looking for improvements and feedback.
h says
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:
1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
(1) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
(2) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.
On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.
Statement Of Defence
Claim xxxxxx
[NAME]
V
Parking Company – GLAD. SOLIC.
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. [INSERT]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at [LOCATION] on [DATE]
2. The Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC.
My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors.. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.
3. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the
parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover
additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred
the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if
they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be
recovered in the Small Claims Court
5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £70, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Glastones to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.
6. No Notice to Keeper was issued therefore non compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability. The keeper liability requirements of POFA 2012 must be strictly complied with where the appellant is the Keeper, as in this case.
As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in POFA 2012. The alleged infringement occurred on 1/07/2016 and it is understood that the NTK was required to reach the registered keeper no earlier than 28/7/2016 and no later than 26/08/2016, this date has passed & the operator has failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ in any form whatsoever. Therefore as the conditions set out by paragraph 6 have not been complied with, there can be no keeper liability. It follows that POPLA will not be able to find that the charge notice is enforceable against the keeper.
7. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable
the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged
contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.
8. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.
9. The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver.
In accordance with the BPA code of practice, the entrance sign must be “readable by drivers without having to look away from the road”. The entrance sign at Sandalwood is on the right side of the road in front of a car park area (Photo1), not on the driver’s side of the road. It is not positioned at the correct angle for a driver entering the parking area to read whilst driving a vehicle. It is also stuck on top of another sign owned by Oakwood Parking centre obstructing the rules of the car park (Photo 2). The ‘Free Parking’ text does not state who the free parking applies to.
This car park appears to be managed by three operators and AM Parking Ltd has placed their sign on top of another operators. Tesco also manage the parking area which is why the driver entered this car park. Their parking offers 20 minutes free parking. These signs are easily visible (Photo 3).
I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the sign, meeting the requirements of the law, was visible to the driver upon entering the car park.
A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle cannot have seen an obstructed sign; there was no consideration / acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently visible.
With regards to the actual sign, it is not BPA compliant. The font specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking is too small and not readable by a driver from their car (Photo 8). The sign contains a vast amount of text and as a result, the font is too small and is not readable by an approaching driver (Photo 9). The sign states that ‘line markings in white are for valid permit holders only’. There are no white line markings at this car park.? This sign therefore contains false information.
10. Failure of AM Parking Ltd to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice Grace Period
In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice grace period, AM Parking Ltd “should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The driver entered the car park and exited at within 10 minutes. The car there for a mere 5 minutes which was not sufficient time under the BPA Grace periods, to have read any signs and decided whether to accept the terms and stay in the car park, or to fetch a permit if the driver had access to one in adjacent premises, or indeed to return to the car (having read the terms) and leave. AM Parking Ltd have failed to adhere to the BPA grace period rules. I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the car was parked for more than 5 minutes and therefore, not within the grace period allowed. AM Parking Ltd need to confirm their specific grace period for the site.
I have recieved court papers and have acknowledged and stated I will defend.
This was a PCN from AM Parking, back in 08/2014, I recieved the NTK (Notice to Owner - https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203572962-AM-Parking-Services-Ltd) was recieved on 01/15 - Over 59 days. Info was requested from DVLA on 12/2014.
This is the location discussed here before:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5515243
Below is my defence, I am looking for improvements and feedback.
h says
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:
1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
(1) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
(2) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.
On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.
Statement Of Defence
Claim xxxxxx
[NAME]
V
Parking Company – GLAD. SOLIC.
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. [INSERT]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at [LOCATION] on [DATE]
2. The Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC.
My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors.. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.
3. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the
parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover
additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred
the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if
they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be
recovered in the Small Claims Court
5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £70, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Glastones to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.
6. No Notice to Keeper was issued therefore non compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability. The keeper liability requirements of POFA 2012 must be strictly complied with where the appellant is the Keeper, as in this case.
As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in POFA 2012. The alleged infringement occurred on 1/07/2016 and it is understood that the NTK was required to reach the registered keeper no earlier than 28/7/2016 and no later than 26/08/2016, this date has passed & the operator has failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ in any form whatsoever. Therefore as the conditions set out by paragraph 6 have not been complied with, there can be no keeper liability. It follows that POPLA will not be able to find that the charge notice is enforceable against the keeper.
7. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable
the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged
contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.
8. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.
9. The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver.
In accordance with the BPA code of practice, the entrance sign must be “readable by drivers without having to look away from the road”. The entrance sign at Sandalwood is on the right side of the road in front of a car park area (Photo1), not on the driver’s side of the road. It is not positioned at the correct angle for a driver entering the parking area to read whilst driving a vehicle. It is also stuck on top of another sign owned by Oakwood Parking centre obstructing the rules of the car park (Photo 2). The ‘Free Parking’ text does not state who the free parking applies to.
This car park appears to be managed by three operators and AM Parking Ltd has placed their sign on top of another operators. Tesco also manage the parking area which is why the driver entered this car park. Their parking offers 20 minutes free parking. These signs are easily visible (Photo 3).
I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the sign, meeting the requirements of the law, was visible to the driver upon entering the car park.
A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle cannot have seen an obstructed sign; there was no consideration / acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently visible.
With regards to the actual sign, it is not BPA compliant. The font specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking is too small and not readable by a driver from their car (Photo 8). The sign contains a vast amount of text and as a result, the font is too small and is not readable by an approaching driver (Photo 9). The sign states that ‘line markings in white are for valid permit holders only’. There are no white line markings at this car park.? This sign therefore contains false information.
10. Failure of AM Parking Ltd to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice Grace Period
In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice grace period, AM Parking Ltd “should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The driver entered the car park and exited at within 10 minutes. The car there for a mere 5 minutes which was not sufficient time under the BPA Grace periods, to have read any signs and decided whether to accept the terms and stay in the car park, or to fetch a permit if the driver had access to one in adjacent premises, or indeed to return to the car (having read the terms) and leave. AM Parking Ltd have failed to adhere to the BPA grace period rules. I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the car was parked for more than 5 minutes and therefore, not within the grace period allowed. AM Parking Ltd need to confirm their specific grace period for the site.
0
Comments
-
Other great people will be along shortly to point you in the right direction.
The only comment I will make at the moment is that Gladstones are incompetent solicitors who actually do not grasp what happens in court or understand what the claim is all about
Some reading for you
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=gladstones
Take note of this one in the above blog
Why Will Hurley and John Davies are Incompetent Scammers
These are the 2 bods who operate Gladstones.
You can see they are not the smartest scammers in the book and they give scammers a bad name0 -
More, (a lot more) reading for you
https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_en-GBGB707GB707&q=you+have+been+gladstoned&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en-GB&q=you+have+been+gladstoned+pranksterYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
recieved on 01/15 - Over 59 days
Check with the DVLA when the Keeper details were given to AM. The DVLA works on the basis that the Notice to Keeper must be sent on day 54. If it takes a week to get to you, it does not matter. It is the day of posting that counts.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
IamEmanresu wrote: »Check with the DVLA when the Keeper details were given to AM. The DVLA works on the basis that the Notice to Keeper must be sent on day 54. If it takes a week to get to you, it does not matter. It is the day of posting that counts.
Hey, it looks like the details where released 5 months after. Incident happened on 07/14 and details given out on 12/14.0 -
So clearly no Keeper Liability so they will revert to the Keeper being driver on the balance of probabilities. So be careful not to mention who was driving and not to mention it on this thread either or it could appear in their claim later.
Does it say anywhere on the AM paperwork that the Keeper may be liable. Does it say anywhere on the Gladstones paperwork that the Keeper may be liable.
As regards your defence, you might want to tighten it up and on the subject of the driver say "Given the passage of time, I am unable to recall who was driving. If the Claimant has evidence that I was I wish to put them to strict proof"This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Thaks IamEmanresu.
Anyone else want to offer any feedback on my defence, is still have some days left, should I wait closer to the deadline or submit now?0 -
I don;t understand the start where it says 'h says' then launches without explanation into quoting from the CoP?
And where you put this:
[NAME]
V
Parking Company – GLAD. SOLIC.
Get rid of ''– GLAD. SOLIC.'' and turn it around because it's not you v them, it is the other way around:
Claim Number
Parking company
v
defendant's name
See bargepole's advice:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71228944#Comment_71228944
And Here's a summary from bargepole of what happens when, what you MUST do in time, re the paperwork & deadlines:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325
Did you get no NTK and no LBC, as suggested in the defence?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
you should amend it as per the above and either repost it below or edit the post above with your current draft
then , as long as you have time , wait for critique
ie:- act in haste , repent at leisure0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I don;t understand the start where it says 'h says' then launches without explanation into quoting from the CoP?
And where you put this:
[NAME]
V
Parking Company – GLAD. SOLIC.
Get rid of ''– GLAD. SOLIC.'' and turn it around because it's not you v them, it is the other way around:
Claim Number
Parking company
v
defendant's name
See bargepole's advice:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71228944#Comment_71228944
And Here's a summary from bargepole of what happens when, what you MUST do in time, re the paperwork & deadlines:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325
Did you get no NTK and no LBC, as suggested in the defence?
Thanks. I recieved a notice to owner, is it technically different than a notice to keeper?
This is what I recieved:
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203572962-AM-Parking-Services-Ltd
I recieved this letter:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8koetqe3RAhXBfRoKHdiGAewQjhwIBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.pepipoo.com%2Flofiversion%2Findex.php%2Ft100205.html&bvm=bv.145822982,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNGGeNJHJZlx9DSBz58bEtRyoJ4MiA&ust=1485984295915926
Can it be classified as a LBC?0 -
Can't see the second link, it's too long.
But the first link showing us a PCS 'NTO' (if you also got a PCS one like that) shows that it was not a NTK capable of holding a keeper liable. Easy enough to see when you compare the wording to para 8 of Schedule 4.
I've just noticed you have somehow managed to get POPLA appeal words into a defence so this is NOT written properly for your purposes(below). Also it doesn't make sense because it's not true that ''the operator has failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ in any form whatsoever.'' They got PCS (a debt collector) to serve a 'NTO' non-POFA-worded version that can only hold a known driver liable.As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in POFA 2012. The alleged infringement occurred on 1/07/2016 and it is understood that the NTK was required to reach the registered keeper no earlier than 28/7/2016 and no later than 26/08/2016, this date has passed & the operator has failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ in any form whatsoever. Therefore as the conditions set out by paragraph 6 have not been complied with, there can be no keeper liability. [STRIKE]It follows that POPLA will not be able to find that the charge notice is enforceable against the keeper.[/STRIKE]PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards