PCN Wrong registration number entered on ticket machine

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

Postal PCN and yes received within 14 days

I will add the POFA warning bit to my ws a repost. I've got a couple of weeks before it's due

Any reason why vcs are doing this in-house and not using solicitors? Is this unusual?

Coupon-mad

No, we don't know why they do some in-house. Maybe to justify someone's 'job'.

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.

ive found this wording on the ntk issued to me

Important Note: If, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and current address for service for the driver, we may pursue the registered keeper for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue date stated above unless the contrary is proved

POFA 2012 9.2.f states

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)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;


Is the wording on the ntk compliant with that of POFA? Im starting to think it is

fadeinout

If the claimant claims more than specified on the NTK, are they not relying on POFA?

Castle

fadeinout wrote: »

ive found this wording on the ntk issued to me

Important Note: If, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and current address for service for the driver, we may pursue the registered keeper for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue date stated above unless the contrary is proved

POFA 2012 9.2.f states

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)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;


Is the wording on the ntk compliant with that of POFA? Im starting to think it is

Date issued and Date given mean two different things.

There's no reference to date issued in POFA; whereas, date given is based on the date of posting, which has to be stated on the NTK, (see Para 9(2)(i)).

fadeinout

Castle wrote: »

Date issued and Date given mean two different things.

There's no reference to date issued in POFA; whereas, date given is based on the date of posting, which has to be stated on the NTK, (see Para 9(2)(i)).

Many thanks for your explanation

fadeinout

Castle wrote: »

Date issued and Date given mean two different things.

There's no reference to date issued in POFA; whereas, date given is based on the date of posting, which has to be stated on the NTK, (see Para 9(2)(i)).

I’ve added the following points to my ws in order to prove POFA non compliance. Am I making the right comments? Thanks for any input


6. It is submitted that the Claimant is unable to take steps to enforce the charges they allege apply, due to their own failure to use the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper (NTK)

7. POFA 2012 is a piece of legislation introduced to provide Keeper Liability. This means if the Claimant does not know the name and address of the driver they can hold the keeper liable under this legislation. To do this, they need to meet the strict requirements contained within POFA 2012 – such as statutory wording.

8. Paragraph (9)(2)(f) of POFA 2012 states

‘The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given…’

9. The NTK issued by the Claimant states

‘If after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this notice…’

10. POFA 2012 makes no reference to issue date in the legislation. Therefore the Claimant’s NTK fails to comply with the statutory wording.

11. The Claimant, therefore, cannot hold me liable as the registered keeper as Paragraph (9)(2)(f) further states


‘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’

As ALL applicable conditions have not been met, the Claimant cannot recover any charges from The Defendant under POFA 2012.

Coupon-mad

I would put this as one numbered point but split into paragraphs, not several numbers:

6. It is submitted that the Claimant is unable to take steps to enforce the charges they allege apply, [STRIKE]due[/STRIKE] for reasons including, but not limited to, their own failure to use the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper (NTK).

6.1. The POFA [STRIKE]2012[/STRIKE] is a piece of legislation introduced to provide a mechanism for a parking firm, if it fully complies with the statute, to claim Keeper Liability. This means if the Claimant does not know the name and address of the driver they can hold the keeper liable under this legislation. To do this, they need to meet the strict requirements contained within the POFA [STRIKE]2012[/STRIKE] !!!8211; such as statutory wording.

6.2. Paragraph (9)(2)(f) of POFA 2012 states:

'The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8230;'

6.3. The NTK issued by the Claimant states a different timeline entirely:

'If after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this notice!!!8230;' [STRIKE]POFA 2012 makes no reference to issue date in the legislation.[/STRIKE] Therefore the Claimant's NTK attempts to claim 'keeper liability' several days before the Act allows, and thus fails to comply with the statutory wording.

6.4. To claim keeper liability under the POFA, there are other statutory requirements, including the fact that a parking firm must provide 'adequate notice' of the terms and parking charge, which is not the case here.

6.5. Further, keeper liability for a private parking charge can only flow from a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation'. Neither exist in this case, where the Claimant was not the named party on the receipt/PDT produced when paying the tariff, so there was no relevant contract or relevant obligation between the driver and VCS; nothing of value was offered, thus no consideration flowed from this Claimant and the elements of a contract with VCS do not exist.

6.6. [STRIKE]As ALL[/STRIKE] Given that all applicable statutory conditions have not been met, the Claimant cannot recover any charges from The Defendant under the POFA. And given that the Defendant was not the driver, and cannot be presumed to be the driver, and nor was the driver acting as agent for the registered keeper, there is no cause of action against this Defendant.

fadeinout

Your knowledge knows no boundaries. Thank You and Thank You again

fadeinout

Ive tidied up my ws and added the very well made points about the NTK and POFA by coupon-mad and castle. Ive also added the stuff about pofa not allowing charges other than those on the ntk.
I'm quite happy with it now, although any further input on this would be more than welcome. I need to print off the bundles and send them by the end of next week. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to helping me on this, that includes all the contributors on other threads that ive read through on mse as well as parking prankster and pepipoo :T:beer:


1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. This is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

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

5. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all. Any alleged breach of contract was between the unnamed driver and the Claimant and was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. De minimis exceptions included in contracts do not apply in circumstances where the failure to observe the restriction has negligible impact.

6. It is submitted that the Claimant is unable to take steps to enforce the charges they allege apply, for reasons including, but not limited to, their own failure to use the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 - (Exhibit **) - prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper (NTK).

6.1. The POFA is a piece of legislation introduced to provide a mechanism for a parking firm, if it fully complies with the statute, to claim Keeper Liability. This means if the Claimant does not know the name and address of the driver they can hold the keeper liable under this legislation. To do this, they need to meet the strict requirements contained within the POFA, such as statutory wording.

6.2. Paragraph (9)(2)(f) of the POFA states:

'The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given'

6.3. The NTK issued by the Claimant - (Exhibit **) - states a different timeline entirely:

'If after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this notice'

Therefore, the Claimant's NTK attempts to claim 'keeper liability' several days before the Act allows, and thus fails to comply with the statutory wording.

6.4. To claim keeper liability under the POFA, there are other statutory requirements, including the fact that a parking firm must provide 'adequate notice' of the terms and parking charge, which is not the case here.

6.5. Further, keeper liability for a private parking charge can only flow from a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation'. Neither exist in this case, where the Claimant was not the named party on the receipt/Pay and Display Ticket - (Exhibit **) - produced when paying the tariff, so there was no relevant contract or relevant obligation between the driver and Vehicle Control Services; nothing of value was offered, thus no consideration flowed from this Claimant and the elements of a contract with Vehicle Control Services do not exist.

6.6. Given that all applicable statutory conditions have not been met, the Claimant cannot recover any charges from The Defendant under the POFA. And given that the Defendant was not the driver, and cannot be presumed to be the driver, and nor was the driver acting as an agent for the registered keeper, there is no cause of action against this Defendant

6.7 The POFA also states that the only sum a registered keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the NTK. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well.

7. 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. The Claimant has shown no evidence that the Defendant was the driver. This is because the Defendant was not the driver, and no evidence will exist to prove otherwise.

8. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 to 2015. I adduce, as evidence, Mr Greenslade’s wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 - (Exhibit**) - regarding keeper liability which confirms that there is ‘no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.’

9. 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.

10. The vehicle in question in this case entered the ************************* at ******** on ***********

10.1. At ******** a parking ticket was purchased for ** hours of parking.

10.2 Exhibit ** is the parking ticket issued.

10.3. During payment at the ticket machine, an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number was entered in error.

10.4. The Vehicle Registration Numbered entered in error was that of the 2nd family car. An easy mistake to make, a certainly not one that should take a year and a half to defend

11. The parking ticket issued was by Excel Parking Services Ltd, this is contrary to the signage around the car park which states the car park is managed and controlled by the Claimant. How can the claimant control the car park, and enter into alleged contracts, if the pay and display parking tickets are issued in another company’s name?

11.1. The Defendant submits that any contract formed was between the unnamed driver and Excel Parking Services Ltd, as printed on the Pay and Display Ticket, when the ticket was paid for and issued

11.2. The claimant has no right to claim on a contract they didn’t form.

12. The Defendant would also like to raise the issue of how Excel Parking Services Ltd obtained his personal information from the Claimant. The Defendant’s appeal to the Parking Charge Notice was to the Claimant.

12.1. Yet the first response, to the Defendants appeal to the Claimant, came from Excel Parking Services Ltd (Exhibit **)

12.2. It can only be concluded that the Claimant passed on the Defendant’s personal information to Excel Parking Services Ltd, a separate legal entity, without the Defendant’s prior consent. This is an invasion of the Defendant’s privacy and is one of the reasons for pursuing costs under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable behaviour by the Claimant.

13. All vehicles entering and exiting the car park have their Vehicle Registration Numbers captured by ANPR cameras. (Exhibit **)

13.1. The vehicle, whose Vehicle Registration Number was entered in error, never entered the car park on the day in question in this case.

13.2. The Claimant’s records, which they have admitted to checking (Exhibit **), will prove this beyond any doubt.

14. Parking companies have the technology to refuse to accept incorrect number plates. Their ANPR systems know which plates are in the car park at any time. Charging people for entering the wrong number is therefore purely a money-making exercise and has nothing to do with car park management.

15. The case of Excel v Burgess. Stockport. 03/07/2017. C3DP33CZ. (Exhibit **) was dismissed by the judge after the defendant made the case that her husband mistakenly entered his own vehicle registration number at the ticket machine.

15.1. On discovering an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number had been entered at the ticket machine, the Claimant’s sister company, Excel, whose name is on the parking tickets issued at the car park in question in this case, reduced the parking charge to a ‘goodwill cancellation fee’ of £10, after an appeal.

16. The Claimant’s sister company therefore believed the true loss in that case to be £10, why was the Defendant in this case never offered, at any stage, the same settlement?

16.1. The Defendant wishes to put on record he would have objected to this settlement offer as parking was paid for in full and the car in question exited the car park a full 1 hour and 15 minutes before the paid for parking ticket expired.

16.2. How can the Claimant justify rejecting an appeal and suing over a case where they know the driver paid, and they know that their owner has lost in court over the same issue in the past, and would therefore have known this claim had very little, to no chance of success from the outset? The Defendant wishes to state this is unreasonable.

16.3. The Claimant is simply profiteering and there is no commercial justification in pursuing parking charges for incorrect Vehicle Registration Number entry.

16.4. The Defendant puts it to the court, that the charge imposed is unconscionable and is completely distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis 04/11/2015

17. ParkingEye v Heggie. Sheffield. 13/12/2013. 3JD04791 (Exhibit **) Ruled in favour of the defendant after he entered his 2nd car’s Vehicle Registration Number in error.

17.1. In that case, the claimant was made aware of the circumstances only after court proceedings had commenced and argued they couldn’t halt proceedings.

17.2 In the Defendant’s case, he made the Claimant aware that the driver had paid in full for a ticket on ******. Some ** months before this claim was filed against him. This is noted in their rejection to the appeal (Exhibit **)

18. Despite informing the Claimant the Defendant was not the driver and of the sequence of events in this witness statement, during an appeal process to the International Parking Community (IPC), and pleas to check the claimant’s records to confirm payment was made with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, it was to no avail and the Claimant has astonishingly pursued a claim to this court.

19. Given the fact that the Claimant is an International Parking Community (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member, it is not surprising the appeal was outright rejected because it is reported in the public domain that the IPC attracted AOS membership away from the rival ATA, by allegedly promising an 80% 'appeal win rate' in favour of operators. The Defendant has since discovered the conflict of interests behind the Trade Body and the so-called 'IAS' was exposed by MPs in the second reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, proposed legislation that has unanimous cross-party support in order to stamp out rogue 'tickets' such as this one.

20. The actions of the Claimant are predatory and opportunistic, which directly breaches the IPC Code of Practice, Part B 14.1. (Exhibit **)

21. The Defendant wishes to put on record the amount of undue stress and alarm caused over the past 12 months by unwarranted and aggressive harassment in the form of letter after letter from various collection agencies, despite the facts stated in this witness statement.

22. The Defendant will be pursuing costs under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g), as the Claimant has acted unreasonably, as noted in #11.2, #12.2, #16.2 and #21

23. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow the Defendant’s costs which will be submitted separately.