Court proceedings for auto repair visit

foofcat

Done, thanks!

foofcat

Another thought: I've taken another look at the "evidence" on PCM's website of the alleged contravention. All the photos are time stamped between 16.36 and 16.37. The original NTK also says 16.36. But on "PCN details" section of their site it says the contravention time was 17.11.

Should I include this discrepancy in my defence - or is it not really a discrepancy?

I have screenshots from the PCM site.

Coupon-mad

I would contend that it is a discrepancy and put the Claimant to strict proof of the timings and to explain the discrepancy.

foofcat

Thanks Coupon-mad. I'll see if I can work that in to the first section. I also noticed that they didn't put the duration of the contravention on the NTK so might include that as I think (from memory) that PoFA says they should?

Lamilad

Para 2. Is too long you don't need that level of detail. Suffice to say

"2. Failure to comply with the conditions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

a) Proceedings to recover the 'unpaid parking charge' were issued by the claimant on [DATE OF ISSUE ON CLAIM FORM]

b) In a letter/email dated xxxx - 3 months(?) before the claimant had begun proceedings - the defendant informed the claimant's agent who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the parking event. This removed any right the claimant had to pursue the RK under the provisions of PoFA (para 5).

c) In their reply dated xxxx, the claimant's agent gave false information to defendant stating it was 'too late' to name the driver and they could still be pursued under PoFA.

d) This deliberate misrepresentation of the Act can only be viewed can only be viewed as a devious and mischievous attempt by the claimant to intimidate the defendant into paying their baseless charge.

e) Such conduct by a professional parking company and serial litigant with full knowledge of the relevant laws, is clearly vexatious and crosses the threshold for unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g)

.... I would then go on to make para 3 an extension of 2 as it also falls under the header "PoFA non compliance"

Lamilad

i. When the Defendant discharged liability, she provided the name of the garage – the serviceable address for which was already known to the Clamant through their own photographs (which showed the vehicle parked directly in front of the garage) – and the fact it was located on the land they alleged the “contravention” had taken place.

Despite my messing around with this passage I would now remove it based on my previous edit

foofcat

b) In a letter/email dated xxxx - 3 months(?) before the claimant had begun proceedings - the defendant informed the claimant's agent who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the parking event. This removed any right the claimant had to pursue the RK under the provisions of PoFA (para 5).

This is maybe a quibble - but all my email said was I wasn't driving because the car was in the possession of XXX garage at the time of the incident.

Should I change your version so it says who the "keeper" was at the time? (As opposed to "registered keeper")

Lamilad

Although the garage is a company it is still an 'individual entity' for the purposes of PoFA.

So you're saying 'the garage was the driver'..... Specifically 'who' at the garage parked the car is irrelevant as the garage has vicarious liability for its employees.

For the purposes of PoFA P5 it's important you say 'driver' rather than 'keeper'

Lamilad

Bear in mind that a lot of the stuff we're cutting out can still be used further down the line when you're creating your WS and skeleton argument.

That's when you go into detail and adduce evidence

foofcat

Ah okay, thanks Lamilad. I've made your edits, but I've kept paras 2 and 3 distinct because I thought it was starting to get muddy when I combined them.

Basically I've done:

2) Non-compliance in pursuing me even after I discharged liability and named the driver

3) Non-compliance because the location was not relevant land and they had no authority on said land - Network Rail does.

Does that make sense? Happy to defer to your expertise but was also thinking of the readability of it (which you've drastically improved in the matter of a few hours!)

(I've edited post #36 on this thread so you can see what it looks like now)