fluttering ticket going to court

Coupon-mad

claxtome wrote: »

One question if I may which I made earlier but may have got missed.
I think the answer is no but here is the question in case someone tells me I am wrong->

Is there any argument me for not admitting being the driver on the day in question and defending instead as a keeper?

(Usual arguments for defending as Keeper seem to be about a NTK not correct in terms of wording or timing which I am not sure is the case for me)

Depends who the PPC is - many but not all IPC members do issue reasonably compliant NTKs. So which PPC are we talking about, sorry if I missed it?

claxtome

Depends who the PPC is - many but not all IPC members do issue reasonably complaint NTKs. So which PPC are we talking about, sorry if I missed it?

ES Parking Enforcement Ltd - the NTK received is in the dropbox folder if you want to look->
https://db.tt/ZpiVevD8Dd

Coupon-mad

OK, you can see that's missing what I would argue is the most crucial thing, the warning that the keeper will be liable within 29 days etc.

As per 8(2)f of Schedule 4.

As that PCN says the DRIVER is liable and mentions nothing about the keeper being liable under the POFA after any period of time, it isn't a document that's capable of holding the keeper liable.

claxtome

In your humble opinion Coupon-mad would you suggest I alter my defence and run it as keeper?
Thus allowing some NTK anomalies/arguments.

Please check my appeals/reply letters when answering as believe I may have slipped up with my wording.

claxtome

I have looked for an hour or two trying to find a quote for ->
Beavis judgement that it doesn't apply to pay and display car parks as was a free car park

Please can someone tell me where to find it or even better quote it in this thread.

I found a quote from parking prankster from another case that refers to the beavis case->

A0JD1405 ParkingEye v Cargius. (25 November 2014, Wrexham County Court). DDJ Mahy dismissed the claim, The charge of £100 far exceeded the cost of the overstay (£2) and subsequent costs. Commercial justification did not apply because the car park generated substantial revenue and therefore it was not necessary to charge large amounts for transgressions to make management commercially viable

.

Umkomaas

I have looked for an hour or two trying to find a quote for ->
Beavis judgement that it doesn't apply to pay and display car parks as was a free car park

It was at The Court of Appeal, the stage before the final case at The Supreme Court.

Case CS030 in this link:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

There'll be a statement comparing the two types of car park contract arrangement, one 'simple', one 'complex' ........ from memory!

Coupon-mad

claxtome wrote: »

In your humble opinion Coupon-mad would you suggest I alter my defence and run it as keeper?
Thus allowing some NTK anomalies/arguments.

Please check my appeals/reply letters when answering as believe I may have slipped up with my wording.

Yes I would - but I haven't had time to use a fine tooth-comb to check your wording for slip-ups!

claxtome

Thank you Umkomaas for pointing in the right case to look at. I had looked in the Supreme Court case instead.
I think the following 2 paragraphs from Beavis v Parking Eye Appeal [2015] are the relevant ones so will add to my defence:

44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract by one party or the other. Sometimes such measurement is difficult because of inherent uncertainties, and in those an agreed liquidated damages provision may be upheld for those reasons. But, however difficult it may be to measure, it is clear that there are economic and commercial effects on the parties.
45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land. The operator affords the driver a free facility. That facility is, of course, of economic value to the driver, as well as of convenience, in assisting the driver to visit the shops in the shopping centre which the car park serves. It is thus useful to the driver, being close to the shops, and free. It is also useful to the shopkeepers, in encouraging visitors, and in particular in encouraging a turnover of visitors because of the two hour limit. A car owner cannot simply come to the car park and park there all day. To do that would be to clog up the facility and to prevent those arriving later from using the park for its intended purpose.

Thanks Coupon-mad I will reword my defence to defend as keeper unless someone thinks that is a bad idea.

beamerguy

claxtome wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-mad I will reword my defence to defend as keeper unless someone thinks that is a bad idea.

ERR !! coupon-mad does not have bad ideas ?

Best do as coupon-mad says

claxtome

Unfortunately it looks like I don't have the proof of posting for the Appeal :mad: - will keep looking for it.

And it looks like the back of the ticket has a different number to the one on the front so don't think I can run with that defence either.