Sip PCN LBCCC received from Glastones

Umkomaas

I never got a POFA.

You would never have ‘got a PoFA’. PoFA is an acronym for The Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012.

The question was did you receive a Notice to Keeper (NtK) which would need to fully comply with PoFA in order to hold the keeper liable.

Coupon-mad

Ferritt wrote: »

I never got a POFA. I suppose I'll argue as the driver. It's actually my partner's claim but I'm trying to sort it for her as she's stressed out.

I have afew days off next week so I'll get this all written up.

You can't.

It's her claim and she wasn't the driver She is the Defendant, not you.

Ferritt

ok so heres my first draft defence.. The layout has changed as I've copied and pasted it over abit which I'm aware of.


I am XXXX XXXX of XXXX, XXXX, XXX, XXX, defendant in this matter.

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

2. The claim form itself is vague and lacks information as to actual location of the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim are in breach of PoFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 4 and merely state the road that the claim is being made upon. As stated in PoFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 8 2a “ The notice must - (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”. As the claimant hasn’t complied to PoFA 2012 schedule 4 in full there is no liability against the defendant.

a) There is no mention in the claim form as to the total time the vehicle was parked and reason for claim other than breaching the terms of parking.
b) The claimant has two parking locations on the road mentioned in the claim form. The claim form does not detail which location the claim relates to.
c) These two parking locations have their own unique location number and are fenced in from one another plus have their own vehicle entrances.
d) Not only are these two locations distinguished by the above but also each has different parking charges advertised on the signs by each location. This shows that each location are separate areas from each other and cannot be claimed as or referred to as a ‘main’ and ‘overflow’ carpark.
e) As the Claimant and their solicitors have failed to notify the Defendant of the actual location of the claim on numerous occasions the Defendant again cannot be held liable for this claim. POFA 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 8 states that for ‘the keeper’ to be held liable certain conditions have to be met, namely “specifying the relevant land as to which the vehicle was parked”. The road name alone is not enough to justify this claim.


3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. Both the claimant and the claimants solicitors have failed to acknowledge or respond to communications from the defendant.

a) The claimant failed to respond to the defendants appeal after the NTD (Notice to driver) was issued, even when copies of photographic evidence were used by the defendant the claimant failed to respond.
b) The claimants solicitors did not respond to the defendant's reply to the LBCC (Letter Before Claim). Again the defendant stated all the true facts and clear points as to why this claim is false.
c) The claimant sent two separate letters delivered the same day and both dated (06/06/17) for two different sums of money (£115 and £125). This makes me think that the claimant clearly has a complete disregard for the facts and their sole purpose is to harass and pressure the defendant into paying knowing full well the claim brought by them is based on their own incompetence and lies.

4. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

a) The total charge payable as described in the claimants poorly worded and positioned terms and conditions are £100. As to the how the claimant believes that fee now becomes £165.12 I am dumbfounded. Another blatant attempt to extract meaningless costs and charges on an already lost case for them.

5.It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and text size hence incapable of binding the driver.

a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage which is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice as of which any contract believed to have been entered into with the Claimant is void.
b) Parking charge signs have been altered from their original state in such a way that it is not only misleading to drivers but completely unjustified and again proves the incompetence and inability from the Claimant to abide by the guidelines set in place.
c) The ‘allday’ parking fee signage displayed on entry is clearly in place to confuse and mislead the driver. This sign alone cancels any contract that the Claimant believes the Defendant to have entered into. The fact that the Claimants whole claim is based on this signage and apparent breach of terms and conditions from these signs again shows a complete lack personalization to this case and points to another ‘cut & paste’ claim brought forward from the Claimant and their solicitors.
e) All signs present are in clear violation of the IPC (International Parking Community) guidelines E.23.
The signs are solely there to ‘entrap’ the driver(s) into a false contract and give a way for the Claimant to start the harassment process and try to force the inflated fees upon us.

5. The Claimants details do not match that of the details on signage which the Claimant is using to form a contract.

(a) The Claimants name used on the claim form are SIP PARKING LTD, yet on the signage at the parking location the name used is SIP CAR PARKS LTD. The Defendant is confused as to why the Claimant has brought this case against them when the signage prove otherwise.

Thanks

claxtome

1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

I don't get, with what you have said, why they can't hold the registered keeper liable. You need to explain why. (Eg. No NTK, or NTK did not comply with POFA as ....) - I can see para 2 explains some of the reasons so maybe just rephrase to :
1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable as NTK did not confirm to POFA 2012 [or] never received a NTK, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

Lamilad

Only had a quick glance but para #2 and 2a aren't right. The particulars cannot be 'in breach of PoFA'.

The"notice" referred in PoFA is either the 'notice to driver' or 'notice to keeper'. Pofa has nothing to do with the particulars of claim.

b) The claimant has two parking locations on the road mentioned in the claim form. The claim form does not detail which location the claim relates to.

Is this correct in your case or have you just copied it from another defence?

There needs to be a much bigger focus on their terrible signage and their woefully embarrassing attempt to change the charge from £2 to £2.50.

Not only is this clearly a trap for unsuspecting motorists to be issued with PCNs but it nowhere near complies with the consumer rights act requirements for clear and transparent terms.

Nor does it comply with the case law from Beavis which states signage must clear and prominently proclaimed leaving the consumer in no doubt over the terms of the contract they are entering into.

Ferritt

claxtome wrote: »

I don't get, with what you have said, why they can't hold the registered keeper liable. You need to explain why. (Eg. No NTK, or NTK did not comply with POFA as ....) - I can see para 2 explains some of the reasons so maybe just rephrase to :
1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable as NTK did not confirm to POFA 2012 [or] never received a NTK, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

Yes I was slightly unsure of this myself. I'll amend to only mention the NTD & NTK

Lamilad wrote: »

Only had a quick glance but para #2 and 2a aren't right. The particulars cannot be 'in breach of PoFA'.

The"notice" referred in PoFA is either the 'notice to driver' or 'notice to keeper'. Pofa has nothing to do with the particulars of claim.
Is this correct in your case or have you just copied it from another defence?

There needs to be a much bigger focus on their terrible signage and their woefully embarrassing attempt to change the charge from £2 to £2.50.

Not only is this clearly a trap for unsuspecting motorists to be issued with PCNs but it nowhere near complies with the consumer rights act requirements for clear and transparent terms.

Nor does it comply with the case law from Beavis which states signage must clear and prominently proclaimed leaving the consumer in no doubt over the terms of the contract they are entering into.

Yes this is true the claimant has two parking locations on the same road. Each with its own pay meter and separate entrances. The actual entrance to the 2nd locations is further down the road (see attached pic taken from google maps)



this parking fees are more at the first 'location', there are also signs outside of the 1st location pointing to the 2nd location down the the road advertising the parking charge as £2 all day. These signs are the same as the others i have shown with the tiny 50p added. Some have decimal places some don't. Also on google maps you can see the original signage before the poor alterations. I have pics of everything.

Thanks