PCN Wrong registration number entered on ticket machine

Umkomaas

I think that unless it is vital to a case (best/only line of defence?), raking up GPEOL and inevitably Beavis, could open up the defendant to being a hostage to fortune.

There have been Judges in the past for whom GPEOL = Beavis = PCN enforceable = PPC wins = Defendant loses.

But I'm not a legal expert, others may comment. Ultimately it is your case and your defence.

fadeinout

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think that unless it is vital to a case (best/only line of defence?), raking up GPEOL and inevitably Beavis, could open up the defendant to being a hostage to fortune.

There have been Judges in the past for whom GPEOL = Beavis = PCN enforceable = PPC wins = Defendant loses.

But I'm not a legal expert, others may comment. Ultimately it is your case and your defence.

I think I understand what youre saying... Most of this is way over my head!

Ok, imo my best line of defence is

- I wasn't the driver. There will be no evidence that I was
- They didn't serve a POFA complaint NTK to hold me, the keeper, liable.
- A PDT ticket was paid for for the time the vehicle spent in the car park

So I need to decide if arguing the GPOEL stuff will hinder my chances of success?

nosferatu1001

I personally would not argue it. GPEOL as a main argument is a dead duck now. You have to be very careful to distinguish it - for example you can state the CoA ruled that this would NEVER be OK in a P&D car park, the SC did not disagree meaning they accpeted the lower courts finding. But it would be brave to do so

You will need to know about E V Loake and CPS v AJH FIlms.

fadeinout

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

I personally would not argue it. GPEOL as a main argument is a dead duck now. You have to be very careful to distinguish it - for example you can state the CoA ruled that this would NEVER be OK in a P&D car park, the SC did not disagree meaning they accpeted the lower courts finding. But it would be brave to do so

You will need to know about E V Loake and CPS v AJH FIlms.

Thank You

I've researched and included a bit on e v l and also Henry Greenslade's wording

I will have a look into cps v AJH Films as you suggest

nosferatu1001

Make sure you state something along the lines of "tyhe claimant may try to introduce the oft-misquoted case of E v L to try to get around their decision not to use the statutory Act to pass liabiltiy for this alleged debt onto the Defendant. They are likely to state this case created a presumption that the driver of a vehicle is also its keeper, however this is not the case - this criminal case involved forensic evidence and testimony from the keeper that placed them at the scene. THere was no presumption made - there was in fact, proof beyond reasonable doubt"

fadeinout

This is what I've included re E v L is,

3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.

3.1 No evidence has been supplied by the Claimant as to the identity of the driver.

3.2 The Defendant, as the Registered Keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case.

3.3 The Claimant may refer to Elliott v Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver.

This is an incorrect representation of the case for the following reasons:

The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he was the driver, and not, as the Claimant may incorrectly state, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver was.

In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.

This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well-known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.

The Claimant is also reminded of the general principle that the claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.

fadeinout

Ive read many posts that say VCS do not issue POFA compliant NTK. I'm trying to point out in my ws how and where they do not comply with POFA. Does the NTK have to include the exact same wording as paragraphs 8 and 9 or just mean the same? I'm struggling to get my head around it

Coupon-mad

Must have the warning in 8(2)f - if windscreen PCN or 9(2)f - if postal PCN was the first notice.

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Must have the warning in 8(2)f - if windscreen PCN or 9(2)f - if postal PCN was the first notice.

Thank You. Is this what I should be saying

Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f), this NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to:
''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;'

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine, if this was a postal PCN. Was it received within 14 days?