Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

RichieBoy56

https://postimg.cc/gallery/258gislek/

KeithP

See that bit at the bottom of page 1 starting "Please be warned:"?

Compare it with para 9(2)(f) of PoFA Schedule 4.

PoFA says:

(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given -
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Your NtK says:

...if after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice...

The issue date of the notice cannot be the same as the "that on which the notice to keeper is given".
Sub-paragraphs (4) and (6) of PoFA para (9) explains the word "given".

Coupon-mad

I agree.

It doesn't assume the keeper was the driver (sorry OP, we do see some that say this, but yours doesn't, I agree with you) but it gets the 28 day period to keeper liability wrong and misleads the recipient by at least two days - could even be out by more days, in the event of posting on a Thursday/Friday.

No, it doesn't make it void, before you ask that.

Yes, it does make it not compliant with the POFA, misleading and (arguably, but it would be up to a Judge's interpretation) not capable of invoking keeper liability.

RichieBoy56

Thanks for your valued comments KeithP and C-m.
Where does this leave me with shooting down their right to rely on POFA? There are other errors that I mentioned before, such as:
NTK did not state period that car was parked, just a contravention time and reason (parked for longer than the max period permitted).
They haven’t stated that a NTD was placed on the car (it was the myparkingcharge thing) but say that the contravention was brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage.
They also say in their letter that they CAN use POFA not that they WILL.
Can I ask them to commit to relying on POFA?
Just wondering if this is a new version of NTK from VCS and if the POFA statement has been tested.

RichieBoy56

I have just revisited the parking site at Brook Shaw Retail Park and noticed that all the signage has been replaced, along with a new sign giving the name of the Managing Agent. Fortunately Google Maps still shows the old signage.
Originally there wasn't any signage at the main entrance to the site. There was misleading signage at the entrance stating 'The Bed Shop - Free Car Park'. There was also another entrance at the time that had no signage. The signage around the car park was minimal and there was also another sign to say 'Parking for Gym Members Only'.
There is now a new sign at the entrance and more signs around the car park.
I think that I should make this the main thrust of my defence.


Comments would be appreciated.

Cyclopath

In response to the OP's question:

"They again refuse to provide a copy of their contract with the Landowner. How can I force their hand on this?"

C-m wrote:

You can't, you have no right to see it yet. Forget it. They will have to produce it before a hearing, in evidence later.

But doesn't the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims oblige the Claimant to produce at least a redacted copy of their contract with the landowner, or explain why it is not available? Wouldn't their refusal to produce the contract be a breach of said protocol, the "express purpose of which is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time" [according to LoC123]?

KeithP

No. The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims obliges the Claimant to provide a copy of the contract between the Claimant and Defendant from which the alleged debt arises.

That contract will typically be the signs.

The ATA's CoP obliges the PPC to show a contract between the PPC and their client - the landholder.

Coupon-mad

I agree with KeithP, the landowner contract is not something that has to be disclosed in pre-action communications, they would just say it'd protected information due to the DPA and that they would show it in court evidence if required.

It's peripheral to the actual 'contract' that has been allegedly breached. It's unimportant at this stage.

Can I ask them to commit to relying on POFA?

Why woud you? Doesn't help wither way, you can see the NTK isn't fully compliant and it would be up to a District Judge (DJ) to interpret if it's OK or not (and some Judges would say yes, and some say no).

Just wondering if this is a new version of NTK from VCS and if the POFA statement has been tested.

No it isn't very new. We've seen that one for several months, I remember it, but also another where they used to 'assume the keeper was the driver'. Your one definitely misstates the liability period for a keeper, but there's no point chewing over it any more.

''DJ lottery'' applies in small claims! You know your arguments but at the end of the day the hearing depends on the evidence provided and the Judge's view.

RichieBoy56

What about the inadequate/confusing signage that I mentioned in Post#56? I take it that this is enough to defeat them.

Coupon-mad

Unseen/non-prominent signage is a potentially winning point at any PPC hearing, of course.