We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CEL over stay fine - Defence statement, Help please
SLC80
Posts: 23 Forumite
Hi all,
This is my first (proper) post, so please accept my apologies for errors.
Piecing all the information I've been reading after I received a court claim form.
Cost has gone from £60 to £326.72 inc costs from the county court business centre inc Court fee: £25, Legal representatives: £50
Unfortunately I no longer have the letters that were sent to me, not responded to any, ignored all up until now hoping it would be forgotten about if I left it long enough but now it has come back and bit me! Please read this insight below as to what happened to give better judgement on my reasons for ignoring.
Dec 2016 my self and friend parked our cars in a Costa carpark at 6pm (max is 3hr stay only found this out later) Stayed for an 1hr 15. Left in one car and drove out to local area. Friends car remained in Costa carpark. 1hr later we drove back Into Costa to find it closed so continued to chat in car. Both of us drove out at 10:30pm approx.
I received a parking fine she didn’t?
To summarise in 5 points why I ignored and thought it was a ‘Mickey Mouse’ company to begin with.
1) Times on initial letter do not add up to my arrival and departure times. They state 17:15-21:15 was my stay in carpark. My Approx times were 18:00-10:30 excluding the 1hr driving out then back in.
2) Date off incident and PCN issue date is more than 28 days-is this something I can use in my defence?
3) Was dark and raining at the time with no clear signs visible let alone being readable.
4) They clearly ignored my mates car and just picked up on mine?
..lastly
5) Clearly missed the fact that I drive out and back 1hr later (only looking at my arrival & departure)
I have been reading through various posts to help me including Newbies and Bargpole to help with my situation, I’m now clear-ish on what I must do but would like help with any proof reading of the below draft if possible and advise on making points to statement so that it’s tailored it to my situation.
I have sent my AOS (acknowledged the claim) online and selected a full defence, leaving the defence box empty, giving me more time to respond with statement.
I have spent some hrs reading/researching on here likewise templates & letters and have started editing what seems to be the basic template for my issue taking out parts that are not relevant to my case.
Do I need to add in my reasons (1, 2, 4 & 5 above) into statement? Maybe into section 4 below? I’m not very good with wording into legal Jargon. Trawled through ‘CEL defence legal’ statements to find one that fits mine but to no avail… These points may help my defence when stating facts at an early stage not to forget the unfair ticket I got in comparison to nothing for the car parked right next to mine! (Don’t really want to land my mate in to it too!)
See below-Any help and advice with the following will be greatly appreciated?
Defence Statement
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXX
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
The Claim Form issued on the 11 Oct 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by the 'Claimant's Legal Representative'
I deny I am liable for the whole of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:
1) This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract is naturally a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action or sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
3) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
b) Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”
c) Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible 251.72 for outstanding debt and damages.
4) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
a) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
b) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is/was no compliant landowner contract
5) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) The sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.
6) No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
7) No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
8) The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
9) The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
10) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11 Oct 2017.
11) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) Failed to disclose the alleged events correctly on Claim Form issued on 11.10.2017
(b) point 2
(c) point 4
(d) point 5..
And so on if needed?
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Signed
Dated
Please advise?
This is my first (proper) post, so please accept my apologies for errors.
Piecing all the information I've been reading after I received a court claim form.
Cost has gone from £60 to £326.72 inc costs from the county court business centre inc Court fee: £25, Legal representatives: £50
Unfortunately I no longer have the letters that were sent to me, not responded to any, ignored all up until now hoping it would be forgotten about if I left it long enough but now it has come back and bit me! Please read this insight below as to what happened to give better judgement on my reasons for ignoring.
Dec 2016 my self and friend parked our cars in a Costa carpark at 6pm (max is 3hr stay only found this out later) Stayed for an 1hr 15. Left in one car and drove out to local area. Friends car remained in Costa carpark. 1hr later we drove back Into Costa to find it closed so continued to chat in car. Both of us drove out at 10:30pm approx.
I received a parking fine she didn’t?
To summarise in 5 points why I ignored and thought it was a ‘Mickey Mouse’ company to begin with.
1) Times on initial letter do not add up to my arrival and departure times. They state 17:15-21:15 was my stay in carpark. My Approx times were 18:00-10:30 excluding the 1hr driving out then back in.
2) Date off incident and PCN issue date is more than 28 days-is this something I can use in my defence?
3) Was dark and raining at the time with no clear signs visible let alone being readable.
4) They clearly ignored my mates car and just picked up on mine?
..lastly
5) Clearly missed the fact that I drive out and back 1hr later (only looking at my arrival & departure)
I have been reading through various posts to help me including Newbies and Bargpole to help with my situation, I’m now clear-ish on what I must do but would like help with any proof reading of the below draft if possible and advise on making points to statement so that it’s tailored it to my situation.
I have sent my AOS (acknowledged the claim) online and selected a full defence, leaving the defence box empty, giving me more time to respond with statement.
I have spent some hrs reading/researching on here likewise templates & letters and have started editing what seems to be the basic template for my issue taking out parts that are not relevant to my case.
Do I need to add in my reasons (1, 2, 4 & 5 above) into statement? Maybe into section 4 below? I’m not very good with wording into legal Jargon. Trawled through ‘CEL defence legal’ statements to find one that fits mine but to no avail… These points may help my defence when stating facts at an early stage not to forget the unfair ticket I got in comparison to nothing for the car parked right next to mine! (Don’t really want to land my mate in to it too!)
See below-Any help and advice with the following will be greatly appreciated?
Defence Statement
In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXX
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXX
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
The Claim Form issued on the 11 Oct 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by the 'Claimant's Legal Representative'
I deny I am liable for the whole of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:
1) This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract is naturally a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action or sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
3) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
b) Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”
c) Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible 251.72 for outstanding debt and damages.
4) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
a) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
b) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is/was no compliant landowner contract
5) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) The sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.
6) No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
7) No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
8) The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
9) The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
10) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11 Oct 2017.
11) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) Failed to disclose the alleged events correctly on Claim Form issued on 11.10.2017
(b) point 2
(c) point 4
(d) point 5..
And so on if needed?
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Signed
Dated
Please advise?
0
Comments
-
Near the top you have 2 "I deny" lines and don't think you need paragraph 11.
You haven't stated that you are defending as 'keeper' or 'driver'. Better to defend as 'keeper' if you haven't let it slip who the driver was.
Is 10:30 correct?1) Times on initial letter do not add up to my arrival and departure times. They state 17:15-21:15 was my stay in carpark. My Approx times were 18:00-10:30 excluding the 1hr driving out then back in.
5) Clearly missed the fact that I drive out and back 1hr later (only looking at my arrival & departure)
Sounds like a double dip case. Did they use ANPR cameras?
The postal PCN (effectively the NTK) should arrive in 14 days so unless you have blurbed who the driver is you have a big defence they can't chase the Keeper under POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9. NEWBIE post gives the same info. You will find a lot of defences use this argument and are ultimately successful.2) Date off incident and PCN issue date is more than 28 days-is this something I can use in my defence?
Not being able to see signs goes against BPA code of practice - so would read up and include.3) Was dark and raining at the time with no clear signs visible let alone being readable.
I am afraid that is typical... They were lucky.4) They clearly ignored my mates car and just picked up on mine?0 -
Thankyou for your feedback claxtome :jNear the top you have 2 "I deny" lines and don't think you need paragraph 11. Corrected. Paragraph 11-So you don't think I need to state these points atall- ? or put somewhere else in defence?You haven't stated that you are defending as 'keeper' or 'driver'. Better to defend as 'keeper' if you haven't let it slip who the driver was. I have not replied to any letters to say otherwise. How do I defend as keeper?
Yep...it is indeed.Is 10:30 correct?
I'm not sure?Did they use ANPR cameras?The postal PCN (effectively the NTK) should arrive in 14 days so unless you have blurbed who the driver is you have a big defence they can't chase the Keeper under POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9. NEWBIE post gives the same info. You will find a lot of defences use this argument and are ultimately successful.
NTK-Note to keeper- is this in the form of PCN letters i got sent, but ignored? if so, i got sent the first one 31 days after incident date.
Not being able to see signs goes against BPA code of practice - so would read up and include.
Will do.
Thankyou0 -
I will amended and post statement again. Would appreciate your opinion once again and anyone elses please.
Also another question. Once I have a final draft ready do i post online/or send by post as bargepole suggests is best, but first do I wait until my AOS has been acknowledged before sending??
Also if i was sent claim form on 11th Oct and replied online on the 17th. do I have 28 days after the 17th or 11th?
Thanks0 -
cant see anything that expands on the lack of POC under the new oct2017 protocols ?
as seen in this thread here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5729157
I recently explained how to email the finalised SIGNED defence
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5727728
post #25
if you have done the aos , you have doubled the time from 14 days to 28 days
in theory you add 5 days onto the date of the claim form, and add 28 days to that0 -
Your AOS isn't acknowledged, so don't expect that.Once I have a final draft ready do i post online/or send by post as bargepole suggests is best, but first do I wait until my AOS has been acknowledged before sending?
Did the claim form say POC were 'to follow'? If so, wait for those to arrive, as discussed on other threads like this, all CEL ones. Read a shedload of them from this month.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Did the claim form say POC were 'to follow'? If so, wait for those to arrive, as discussed on other threads like this, all CEL ones. Read a shedload of them from this month.
Letter states ' i will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'
What does this mean? It has been 14 days already. I've not had anything?0 -
cant see anything that expands on the lack of POC under the new oct2017 protocols ?
as seen in this thread here
Redx- this bit?
The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’I recently explained how to email the finalised SIGNED defence
post #25
Perfect, Thanksif you have done the aos , you have doubles the time from 14 days to 28 days
in theory you add 5 days onto the date of the claim form, and add 28 days to that
Ok thats clear, So once defence letter is ready and as PDF, aslong as i send it before this deadline.0 -
yes , that bit and the paragraph(s) above it , all talk about the new protocols from 01 oct 2017
yes , you sign and date it , save as a pdf file and attach to an email to the CCBC, before the court imposed deadline
yours is the typical newbie conundrum where you have not read enough recent threads
that is all I do, I have no legal training and no impending or outstanding court case, so its all about education and research. read enough and you will know enough0 -
Letter states ' i will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'
What does this mean? It has been 14 days already. I've not had anything?
Have a look here; new advice from Johnersh and LOC123, both solicitors, read it all:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73315809#Comment_73315809
HTHPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
You haven't stated that you are defending as 'keeper' or 'driver'. Better to defend as 'keeper' if you haven't let it slip who the driver was. I have not replied to any letters to say otherwise.The postal PCN (effectively the NTK) should arrive in 14 days so unless you have blurbed who the driver is you have a big defence they can't chase the Keeper under POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9. NEWBIE post gives the same info. You will find a lot of defences use this argument and are ultimately successful.
Claxtome or anyone. I have not responded to any letters or given away i am the driver or keeper. I thought i had made reference to this in my original 1st draft, no? I have since read more and added- see below section on this. does this read ok? and does the below now clearly state im defending as keeper?
The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible 251.72 for outstanding debt and damages.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards