pcn to registered keeper

Pdmum

Thank you.

Pdmum

The 'Shoe Lane'Transcript is 8 pages long. Presumably this goes into bundle too. Is it just the summing up in the last paragraph which needs to be in evidence?

Pdmum

In addition to last post..... Does a copy of my Bundle at court have to be copied for claimant and judge?

Pdmum

The 'Shoe Lane'Transcript is 8 pages long. Presumably this goes into bundle too. Is it just the summing up in the last paragraph which needs to be in evidence?



In addition to last post..... Does a copy of my Bundle at court have to be copied for claimant and judge?



Is it necessary to include copies of letters to PC and the replies?

Pdmum

Sorry to ask again but would someone just clarify my previous before i post my final witness statement.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Does a copy of my Bundle at court have to be copied for claimant and judge?

No but taking extra copies of things like your printed email proof that you DID send your WS to the other side, is useful to have in duplicate in case their rep lies that they never had it.

You just need the relevant page to file & serve, but I would have the whole 8 page judgment (double sided saves paper) in your OWN bundle.

Pdmum

Final witness statement for comments.

In the County Court at xxxx
Claim No. xxxx
Between
Xxxxx Claimant
and
xxxxxx Defendant

Witness Statement ( In support of Defence already filed)
1. I am xxx of xxxxxx and the defendant in this matter.
I deny I am responsible for this claim for the following reasons:-
2. I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx, I was neither driver or passenger in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
3. I received a parking charge notice relating to the above vehicle . The reason being Failure to pay for the duration of stay. The duration was stated as being 2 hours and 18 minutes. ( XX1 )
The driver confirmed that parking had been paid for ,so I appealed to Claimant.
4. The appeal was rejected, although the claimant admitted at this point that payment had been made but there had been ‘ an overstay to a paid parking period’. I believed at this point there had been a deliberate attempt to mislead on the Parking Notice and that this was a scam. ( XX2)
Other reasons for the issue of the PCN have also been provided during this process, which is confusing and misleading . (XX3)&
(xx3)(a)&(b)

5. The driver had paid in good faith to park. Time spent before purchasing a ticket and exit time were more than covered by grace periods as set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
The Claimant has mentioned that they are members of the BPA approved operator scheme but have chosen not to apply the applicable 2 Grace Periods as set out in para 13 of the BPA Cop (XX4)
(XX5)
6.I believe there is also breach of the ICO Code of Practice for Automatic Number Plate Recognition & Surveillance Cameras.
The Claimant has used the ANPR to calculate parking time as opposed to the only time available to the driver on the ticket issued from the Pay and display machine.
XX fails to properly inform people of this, and these are paying customers who will be reasonably relying on the tangible PDT issued by the machine, as that has actual 'parking time' on it.
XX make wholly 'automated decisions' to issue PCNs with no human intervention, clearly nothing is checked individually by a person.
The use of ANPR in this way, is purely in order to profit from genuine paying drivers whose tariffs do match their actual parking time, but simply could not complete the in/out actions in 10 minutes flat. And who never knew they had to.
7.The importance of the information on the Pay and Display ticket is highlighted in this case transcript
(XX6)
As opposed to being charged and held into by an unknown contract term, from the very second the vehicle was purportedly captured by ANPR entering and exiting the car park.
8.No signs explained at the site entrance (as cars pass in moving traffic), that the driver's time was being counted from that point and not from the payment at the machine. Why would a different time be shown on the Pay & Display ticket, if it is not the timing upon which a driver can fairly rely?
9. Proof of relevant documents have been requested, both during the POPLA appeals process and as part of the Pre Action Protocol and have still not been provided mainly but not limited to the Landowner Contract and images of the signage at the site at the time of the alleged incident
10. The Claimants contractual authority to operate in the car park in which the alleged incident
occurred has not been proven as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice para 7
(XX7)
It is believed the claimant no longer operates at the site in question because there have been complaints.
11.Images of the signage at this site produced by the claimant have had to be circled to stand out. At the time of the alleged incident (at night ) and I believe in an unlit car park they would have been impossible to see. The images date stamp does not correspond with the contract start date. (xx8)
(xx9)
12. 2 Subject access Requests have been refused by the claimant as being unfounded and excessive. The claimant states that they would do a search if payment was made.
A complaint was made to the Information Commisioners Office and the claimant was found to have not complied with its data protection obligations and that there should not have been a charge
(XX10)
(XX11)
Further investigation of the claimant by the ICO is ongoing in relation to the Code of Practice for Automatic Number Plate Recognition & Surveillance Cameras.
13. The Protection of Freedoms act is not fully complied with in regard to Keeper Liability.
The Claimants states “ within 28 days of the notice” which is an attempt to put right the wording shown on PCN which says “If within 29 days”.
Both of these statements do not comply with the strict wording required by POFA and would mean that the Claimant is claiming keeper liability too soon. (XX12)
The sum claimed from the Defendant ( if proven) cannot be more than would have been claimed from the driver.
14. The claimant continues to mislead by claiming the Defendant is the Driver. The Defendant has not named the driver and the burden of proof rests with the claimant.
The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015. (XX13)
15. It is my belief that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly from the start.
16.This unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused distress to me and my family.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Signature
Name Date

Pdmum

and list of evidence


Evidence in support of defendant claim no xxxxxx Page no.

Xx1. Copy of Parking Charge Notice no xxxxxx 1.
Xx2. Copy of email response to appeal. 2.
XX3. LBC letter stating 16 min overstay 3.
a * LBC evidence p4 showing 16 min overstay and 3.(a)
* 4 hours and 21 mins.
b LBC evidence p18 stating no registration details entered 3.(b)
at payment terminal .
xx4. BPA Director Kelvin Reynolds ''good parking practice includes 4
observation and grace periods'' article.
XX5.BPA CoP para 13 5
Xx6. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (the transcript*) 6
Xx7. BPA CoP para 7 7
XX8. Claimants copies of signage at site 8
XX9. Beavis case sign as a comparison of what a clear, brief and very legible sign with simple terms and the actual parking charge in large lettering, looks like. 9
xX10. Complaint to ICO 10
xx11 Response from ICO 11
XX12. PoFA 2012 para 8(f) 12
[FONT=&quot]XX13. Henry Greenslade's UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY article from the POPLA Annual Report 2015. [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

7.The importance of the information on the Pay and Display ticket is highlighted in this case transcript

I think you need to refer to it by name, like this para I just wrote for someone (you can use it if you want):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75011213#Comment_75011213

A complaint was made to the Information Commisioners Office and the claimant was found to have not complied with its data protection obligations and that there should not have been a charge
(XX10)
(XX11)

Did the ICO actually say that? Not just a slap for not replying to the SAR?!

Pdmum

Thank you for that CM.

Will add that to point 7.


Yes i have misworded the response from ICO, actually says that PC didnt respond to 2nd SAR appropriately. Will correct this.


Need to take this to the court tomorrow, still had no response from the PC