County court advice needed

nosferatu1001

"The whole thing about keeper liability depends on the signs being inadequate "

No it doesnt. It relies on the claimant failing to follow the strict reuqirements of POFA

I would advise againstr ignoring the advice of one of the most experienced players in this pribvate parking game, who wrote the excellent newbies thread and who is far more active on this and pepipoo than anyone shoul dhave time for

A single point defence is brave but foolish.

Lamilad

A single point defence is brave but foolish.

+1 especially when that point is signage which, we know, can go either way depending on the judge.

We also know that PoFA can be a slam dunk defence when argued correctly... It's black and white - they've either complied or they haven't!

Dollshouse

I'm sorry. I appreciate that you want to help but I really can't understand how PoFA can be a "slam dunk defence" in my case.

I'm struggling now and don't know what to do.

Why is the sparse Particulars of Claim a problem for the claimant? It is very concise but it seems to say all the basics that they need to say. How can I use that in defence?

Quentin

Why are you coming back if you are determined to plough your own furrow??

Your short defence has been commented on by authorities on the topic.

You ignore the advice at your own risk.

Coupon-mad

Why is the sparse Particulars of Claim a problem for the claimant? It is very concise but it seems to say all the basics that they need to say. How can I use that in defence?

Because Gladstones cases are regularly struck out or highly criticised by Judges, who find in favour of the Defendant. Some Judges rightly take the view that it's up to a firm of Solicitors to play things by the book in terms of fair and full particulars, whereas they would cut some slack for you.

I really can't understand how PoFA can be a "slam dunk defence" in my case.

It can be if your local court understands that a keeper can't be held liable unless the NTK meets the POFA wording (e.g. Manchester and Skipton Courts absolutely GET that fact). Which court is yours?

Lamilad

I really can't understand how PoFA can be a "slam dunk defence"

There are loads of cases like these that can researched on the forums. the pranksters blog or just google:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/new-transcript-keeper-not-liable-if.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/excel-ignore-judge-case-struck-out-by.html

Dollshouse

I don't have the NTK so I don't know whether or not it was worded correctly or served correctly.

I can't see what might be missing from the Particulars of Claim and why it might not be 'fair and full'.

It says, "The driver of the vehicle registration number ****** (the Vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on **/**/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at **** car park **** The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £4.63 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day."

[Their capitalisation]

Dollshouse

Lamilad wrote: »

There are loads of cases like these that can researched on the forums. the pranksters blog or just google:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/new-transcript-keeper-not-liable-if.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/excel-ignore-judge-case-struck-out-by.html

Thanks, but neither of those are like my case. There are important differences.

Lamilad

Thanks, but neither of those are like my case. There are important differences.

Doesn't matter. The point is if they haven't complied with PoFA then they can't hold the keeper liable and they would have no case.

Dollshouse

They aren't claiming against the keeper, they are claiming against the driver and/or the keeper.