Ignorance a defence?

Moi?

muleskinner wrote: »

PPC's are regularly quoting it completely out of context to justify their tenuous 'if the signs were there you should have seen them' argument. I see no reason to throw this back at them. The general principle is the same - you can't be bound by terms and conditions on a notice that you haven't seen.

I'll have a clearer idea of what at least one DJ thinks when my case goes to court!

In my layman's terms, I'm an intelligent woman with nearly thirty years' driving experience. I am very familiar with the area in which I was parking, though of course I didn't know that these money leeching vampires had moved in. I drove in, parked, walked into the pub, and THOSE SIGNS WERE NOT PROMINENT ENOUGH FOR ME TO SEE THEM. I make that their fault, not mine.

I hope your court case goes your way.

Quentin

Moi? wrote: »

This thing about don't admit you're the driver. If you can't name anyone else, doesn't that mean you're liable for the invoice?

No.

You refuse to name the driver!

Quentin

Moi? wrote: »

Yes I realised this after asking. But what if no one else actually does drive the car?

Thanks Quentin.

So what????

Umkomaas

Moi? wrote: »

This thing about don't admit you're the driver. If you can't name anyone else, doesn't that mean you're liable for the invoice?

Identifying the driver removes any possible protection the keeper has which is afforded to him/her by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the PPC gets everything correct in its issue of the Notice to Keeper, then they can invoke KL, but they have to tick every single box - and there’s plenty of room for them not to. In which case, the keeper cannot be liable.

Did the NtK you received have a section of PoFA and a paragraph which commences ‘If after 29 days .....’?

Even if all the KL boxes are ticked, it will still be for the PPC to argue at POPLA that they have met every requirement.

You give them every possible hurdle you can for them to get over. Fail to get over one - you win. They must get over every one you put in their way.

Moi?

The pub is now contacting ParkingEye to cancel the invoice. Apparently they get 5-6 a day of these things, so it's not just me being blind. Dread to think how many people pay, judging by the response I've had on Facebook, I'd say many more.

Thanks for all your help and advice.

Umkomaas

I’m sure that PE have improved the pub’s business levels no end since engagement!

Why do businesses put their entire customer base at peril in order to eliminate a likely small problem with fly-parkers? Because once those fly-Parker’s have gone, who has the PPC left to make its money from? And you can be sure they’ve legally signed up the landowner for a minimum of 3 years, with a swingeing costs get-out clause.

KeithP

Moi, in post #22 you tell us you are an intelligent woman and the discussion has covered 'never admit who was driving'.

With that in mind you would be wise to remove all clues to the driver's identity from that post.

The word 'I' should never feature in a description of events on the day.

For example, one of your sentences should perhaps read:

The driver drove in, parked, walked into the pub, and THOSE SIGNS WERE NOT PROMINENT ENOUGH FOR THE DRIVER TO SEE THEM.

Please review the rest of that post similarly.
Post #13 needs similar scrutiny.

Moi?

KeithP wrote: »

Moi, in post #22 you tell us you are an intelligent woman and the discussion has covered 'never admit who was driving'.

With that in mind you would be wise to remove all clues to the driver's identity from that post.

The word 'I' should never feature in a description of events on the day.

For example, one of your sentences should perhaps read:

The driver drove in, parked, walked into the pub, and THOSE SIGNS WERE NOT PROMINENT ENOUGH FOR THE DRIVER TO SEE THEM.

Please review the rest of that post similarly.
Post #13 needs similar scrutiny.

Can my username be traced back me to?

KeithP

Moi? wrote: »

Can my username be traced back me to?

Not that I know of.

The point is that in due course you will probably be posting a Popla appeal text here, or a court defence statement, and at such time it is important that anyone reading this thread cannot decide that the appellant/defendant is the driver.

Just before Christmas I received a PM from a poster showing me that a PoPLA appeal had been lost simply because the operator was able to show that the keeper appellant was actually the driver. They did this by using screen prints from this very forum.

Moi?

KeithP wrote: »

Not that I know of.

The point is that in due course you will probably be posting a Popla appeal text here, or a court defence statement, and at such time it is important that anyone reading this thread cannot decide that the appellant/defendant is the driver.

Just before Christmas I received a PM from a poster showing me that a PoPLA appeal had been lost simply because the operator was able to show that the keeper appellant was actually the driver. They did this by using screen prints from this very forum.

Have you read #26? It says the invoice has been cancelled by the pub I was visiting.