Court proceedings for auto repair visit

foofcat

KADOE just means, Keeper At Date Of Event, which further distinguishes it from the Registered Keeper

Oh thank you! I thought it was synonymous with a contract so I appreciate you clarifying. I'll incorporate that too.

The PCN is using a prohibited premium rate 'phone number. More importantly, it, and subsequent documentation, is stating that there is a charge for using a credit card. This was banned from mid January by the introduction of the Payment Services Directive.
This therefore is an attempt at fraud.

Wow okay. I think I'll need to figure out where to add this in the witness statement - it sounds like it should go in with any thoughts about the wording on the signage but perhaps in a new point as my existing point re; wording is more about forbidding signage in relation to other cases.

Thank you for catching this. I'll have a quick google to see if I can find more info re: the Payment Services Directive.

Fruitcake

I think you have done a really good job and have got all the important stuff. I suppose really I'm nit picking, but showing up other errors in addition to the main points of your defence.

In the NTK it states that, "PCM as agent of the landowner, has the right to seek payment of this parking charge." But, as we now know, they are not an agent of the landowner, but an agent of an agent ... of the landowner.

Umkomaas

There is a KADOE contract in place between the DVLA and all PPCs. The term 'KADOE' when used here in that form is synonymous with that contract, we don't normally use it as shorthand for 'keeper at date of parking event' (lower case), but I think on this occasion, Fruitcake has used it as that?

Fruitcake

Your VRN and PCN number is visible in the text of the second letter (keeper liability letter). It should be redacted.

The letter also states that it is too late to name the driver. This is of course not true.

Fruitcake

Umkomaas wrote: »

There is a KADOE contract in place between the DVLA and all PPCs. The term 'KADOE' when used here in that form is synonymous with that contract, we don't normally use it as shorthand for 'keeper at date of parking event' (lower case), but I think on this occasion, Fruitcake has used it as that?

Yes. I was just trying to emphasise the point that the garage was the keeper at the material time, as opposed to registered keeper.

foofcat

Your VRN and PCN number is visible in the text of the second letter (keeper liability letter). It should be redacte

Ah crikey thank you for catching that as well. I tried to be so careful! I'll replace the dropbox file with a new one and post the most recent version of the Statement here for anyone who wants to see / provide further feedback

Fruitcake, on balance as the regulation re: premium phone numbers came in this year (after the Claimant began court proceedings) and I'm struggling to keep things contained at this stage I may hold off on including it at this stage unless your advice is that it's critical to include in my bundle...?

One question about the hearing: if the Solicitors try to argue that PoFA doesn't specify that keeper liability can be transferred any time until COURT proceedings have been initiated and therefore it could simply mean DEBT RECOVER proceedings - is there anything I can use to refute that in a way that the judge will agree with me? I want to make sure that point is airtight and fool proof!

foofcat

Ah damn. On redacting the new bundle I've spotted that the DVLA SAR does in fact say that my data was accessed before they sent me the NTK in relation to this event. I think amidst all the stress and tiredness I misread the date. That means I'll have to redo that part of my DS and that my email SAR to PCM was pointless.

KeithP

Regulation 41 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 says:

Help-line charges over basic rate

41. - (1) Where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate.

(2) If in those circumstances a consumer who contacts a trader in relation to a contract is bound to pay more than the basic rate, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to pay to the consumer any amount by which the charge paid by the consumer for the call is more than the basic rate.

Looks pretty weak, but it is legislation.

That regulation came into effect on 13 June 2014.

DW190

I know you have pretty well covered everything in the defence but as they want a paper hearing and don't want the expense of anyone attending I think their witness statement should be picked at to find something that would require cross examination of their witness.

Coupon-mad

I don't think you need to worry about a Judge understanding what 'before proceedings commence' means, as set out in a Statute!

I do think you need to remove the unnecessary stuff and keep it simpler, and make sure you evidence that you did transfer liability, which was in time.