PCN Wrong registration number entered on ticket machine

fadeinout

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

2. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for.

This is a legal argument. Yours isnt. Evidence comes later. You are writing legal arguments now.

Thanks for this. I will amend

Coupon-mad

You need to make sure everything is in the third person, not 'I', so I suggest #8 becomes:

8. The Defendant wishes the Court to take note of the serious distress and alarm caused to the Defendant and their family, as a direct result of the unwarranted and aggressive harassment by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite the fact there can be no 'keeper liability' outwith the POFA 2012, and the Claimant is already aware from the appeal that the Defandant keeper was not the driver.

fadeinout wrote: »

Should i include in point 2 that the registration number was entered incorrectly?

Yes, continuing like this:

2.1. The Defendant's partner paid for parking but entered her own registration number, instead of the registration number of the Defendant's car which she was driving.

2.2. Fortunately, she has kept the ticket proving the payment and this was already shown to the Claimant by the Defendant in an appeal. This proved futile.

2.3. Given the fact that this Claimant is an International Parking Community ('the IPC') 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.

2.4. The Claimant is indisputably aware that they have no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge under these circumstances, but it is seemingly intent on a meritless, intimidating claim to try to recover what amounts to an unconscionable penalty. The facts of this case are fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to make sure everything is in the third person, not 'I', so I suggest #8 becomes:



Yes, continuing like this:

2.1. The Defendant's partner paid for parking but entered her own registration number, instead of the registration number of the Defendant's car which she was driving.

2.2. Fortunately, she has kept the ticket proving the payment and this was already shown to the Claimant by the Defendant in an appeal. This proved futile.

2.3. Given the fact that this Claimant is an International Parking Community ('the IPC') 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.

2.4. The Claimant is indisputably aware that they have no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge under these circumstances, but it is seemingly intent on a meritless, intimidating claim to try to recover what amounts to an unconscionable penalty. The facts of this case are fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

Thank you. I will amend and post a revised defence in the morning to include these points

I honestly can’t thank you enough for taking time to offer me your help :beer:

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to make sure everything is in the third person, not 'I', so I suggest #8 becomes:



Yes, continuing like this:

2.1. The Defendant's partner paid for parking but entered her own registration number, instead of the registration number of the Defendant's car which she was driving.

2.2. Fortunately, she has kept the ticket proving the payment and this was already shown to the Claimant by the Defendant in an appeal. This proved futile.

2.3. Given the fact that this Claimant is an International Parking Community ('the IPC') 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.

2.4. The Claimant is indisputably aware that they have no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge under these circumstances, but it is seemingly intent on a meritless, intimidating claim to try to recover what amounts to an unconscionable penalty. The facts of this case are fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

I’ve made the changes you suggest. Do the first 2 lines stay in the first person where I am denying liabaility and stating I am the registered keeper?




I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:


1. The Defendant was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged offence in question. The claimant is aware of this from the Defendant’s contact with them.

2. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for.
2.1. The Defendant's partner paid for parking but entered her own registration number, instead of the registration number of the Defendant's car which she was driving.
2.2. Fortunately, she has kept the ticket proving the payment and this was already shown to the Claimant by the Defendant in an appeal. This proved futile.
2.3. Given the fact that this Claimant is an International Parking Community ('the IPC') 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.
2.4. The Claimant is indisputably aware that they have no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge under these circumstances, but it is seemingly intent on a meritless, intimidating claim to try to recover what amounts to an unconscionable penalty. The facts of this case are fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

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. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

5. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
b) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
c) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and
iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and
v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held, and This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.

6. The Claimant states there was a breach of contract yet even if there was a purported contract between the unidentified driver and the Claimant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the failure to comply with points #5 i - v above, as part of the legal obligations that must be communicated up front and/or undertaken by a consumer-facing service provider, some of which were required even before commencing any use of ANPR at all)

7. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.

8. The Defendant wishes the Court to take note of the serious distress and alarm caused to the Defendant and their family, as a direct result of the unwarranted and aggressive harassment by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite the fact there can be no 'keeper liability' out with the POFA 2012, and the Claimant is already aware from the appeal that the Defendant keeper was not the driver.


9. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Coupon-mad

Do the first 2 lines stay in the first person where I am denying liability and stating I am the registered keeper?

Why not dispense with that waffle at the start?


1. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged parking event in question. The claimant is aware of this from the Defendant's contact with them. The Defendant cannot be held liable under any applicable law, not least because the document described as a 'Notice to Keeper' is incapable of establishing keeper liability, and merely (wrongly) assumes the keeper was driving.

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why not dispense with that waffle at the start?


1. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged parking event in question. The claimant is aware of this from the Defendant's contact with them. The Defendant cannot be held liable under any applicable law, not least because the document described as a 'Notice to Keeper' is incapable of establishing keeper liability, and merely (wrongly) assumes the keeper was driving.

Ive replaced my point 1 with what you suggest, but broken the paragraph up into subsections for clarity.
I am quite happy with it as it stands, it gets over the point a quite simple and honest mistake was made while also pointing out how farcical these kind of claims are.

Do I progress onto the next stage in the process now?





1. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged parking event in question.
1.1 The claimant is aware of this from the Defendant's contact with them.
1.2 The Defendant cannot be held liable under any applicable law, not least because the document described as a 'Notice to Keeper' is incapable of establishing keeper liability, and merely (wrongly) assumes the keeper was driving.

2. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for.
2.1. The Defendant's partner paid for parking but entered her own registration number, instead of the registration number of the Defendant's car which she was driving.
2.2. Fortunately, she has kept the ticket proving the payment and this was already shown to the Claimant by the Defendant in an appeal. This proved futile.
2.3. Given the fact that this Claimant is an International Parking Community ('the IPC') 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.
2.4. The Claimant is indisputably aware that they have no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge under these circumstances, but it is seemingly intent on a meritless, intimidating claim to try to recover what amounts to an unconscionable penalty. The facts of this case are fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

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. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

5. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
b) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
c) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and
iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and
v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held, and This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.

6. The Claimant states there was a breach of contract yet even if there was a purported contract between the unidentified driver and the Claimant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the failure to comply with points #5 i - v above, as part of the legal obligations that must be communicated up front and/or undertaken by a consumer-facing service provider, some of which were required even before commencing any use of ANPR at all)

7. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.

8. The Defendant wishes the Court to take note of the serious distress and alarm caused to the Defendant and their family, as a direct result of the unwarranted and aggressive harassment by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite the fact there can be no 'keeper liability' out with the POFA 2012, and the Claimant is already aware from the appeal that the Defendant keeper was not the driver.


9. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Coupon-mad

Yes, add the usual headings including 'DEFENCE' (one word) and add a Statement of truth at the bottom and then print a copy out to sign & date, in pen.

Then scan the document and attach ti to an email to the CCBCAQ email address, with 'DEFENCE' AND THE CLAIM NUMBER in the subject line, of course.

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, add the usual headings including 'DEFENCE' (one word) and add a Statement of truth at the bottom and then print a copy out to sign & date, in pen.

Then scan the document and attach ti to an email to the CCBCAQ email address, with 'DEFENCE' AND THE CLAIM NUMBER in the subject line, of course.

Thank You. Just to confirm, do I save it as a jpeg or a pdf file? Other than sending it as an email do I need to send a physical copy?

KeithP

fadeinout wrote: »

Thank You. Just to confirm, do I save it as a jpeg or a pdf file? Other than sending it as an email do I need to send a physical copy?

Here's an idea... how about reading post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

In there you will find a link to Bargepole's explanation on what you need to do and when. Read the whole of that linked thread and your answer is obvious.

But you already know that, it has been suggested to you before.

fadeinout

KeithP wrote: »

Here's an idea... how about reading post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

In there you will find a link to Bargepole's explanation on what you need to do and when. Read the whole of that linked thread and your answer is obvious.

But you already know that, it has been suggested to you before.

#2 of that thread links to bargepoles!!!8217;s steps of what to do and when. In it, he states

!!!8220;I recommend printing and posting (registered) to Northampton, trying to fit it in the online box destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read!!!8221;

Subsequently, coupon mad suggested sending by email.

Unsure of what to do, I posted my question in a forum (imagine that!) to clarify the situation.

I will read the remainder of this thread in pursuit of the answer

Thank you