Help required - OH Court date in under 3 weeks and been ill!

Stevey

Hi folks,

Wondering if I have just found a smoking gun that will help me. I have downloaded the Land Registry Title Plan and register entry for the Land on which the car park is situated, and the Postcode used by the Parking company in their parking notices to identify where the car park is does not match the title deed for the land. i.e. they are using the wrong postcode!

Edit - Have looked further and I think the address is also incorrect. Also the title deed is under a different company name so I believe claimant will need to prove a transfer of rights from the landowner right to claim

Could these be used to win the case - i.e. There is no car park at the address or postcode they are referring to in their parking notice, that is managed by their company?

Hoping and waiting for your professional opinion

Coupon-mad

Not a ''professional'' opinion, but IMHO:

Also the title deed is under a different company name so I believe claimant will need to prove a transfer of rights from the landowner right to claim

That's important evidence! They must show landowner authority and the right to sue, or they have no locus standi.

The wrongly-stated address and postcode are more minor, probably. Some large sites might have 2 postcodes, for example.

Your wife's main defence is likely to be your point #5, surely:

The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site has changed since the parking charge was allegedly incurred on the 17th July 2017. At the time of the alleged parking contravention, there were no signs displayed at the entrance to the car park, meaning no contract could be formed between driver and Claimant.

As LOC123 says:

produce evidence of this and exhibit it then expand on this. Cross refer to the BPA/IPC CoP (whichever is the relevant one) which has fairly stringent guidenlines about signage. Put the CoP in your documents bundle.

Have you got photos already, if not can you get some, especially of the old signs? Look on Google StreetView and Google Images.

Where is this location and what is the contravention? Was it pay & display?

If an overstay of free parking time, was there a reason, does the driver/passenger have any disability or had a long term medical condition in 2017 that slowed them down?

Does your wife know she must appear. You can speak as her 'lay rep' but not in her absence. Which court?

Stevey

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not a ''professional'' opinion, but IMHO:That's important evidence! They must show landowner authority and the right to sue, or they have no locus standi.

The wrongly-stated address and postcode are more minor, probably. Some large sites might have 2 postcodes, for example.

Your wife's main defence is likely to be your point #5, surely:

As LOC123 says:
Have you got photos already, if not can you get some, especially of the old signs? Look on Google StreetView and Google Images.

Where is this location and what is the contravention? Was it pay & display?

If an overstay of free parking time, was there a reason, does the driver/passenger have any disability or had a long term medical condition in 2017 that slowed them down?

Does your wife know she must appear. You can speak as her 'lay rep' but not in her absence. Which court?

Not sure I want to give too much detail, but point 5 has been made less strong by our friends at Google, who have recently updated their Street View of the area and are showing the signs in place at the time. When defence was submitted, my wife did not recall them, and the Google Images from Sept 2016 (still current on their site when defence was submitted) which I have saved show no signs in place.

Is it safe to post the location - wouldn't this be enough for the claimant's solicitor to identify the case? I can share this if it will help.

It was an overstay of 40 mins in a Pay and Display - thought she'd paid for 2 hrs but was only 1.

She know's she has to appear - I'm hoping to be the lay rep.

Coupon-mad

the Google Images from Sept 2016 (still current on their site when defence was submitted) which I have saved show no signs in place.

Good! Glad you saved those images, so say this (above) in your WS.

Is it safe to post the location

Yes, promise. We help people win, some 99% of the time here when well defended cases are assisted from start till finish and we know things about some locations and can suggest things about certain parking firms, to use.

Also, we might be able to find more concurrent signage pics for you.

Stevey

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good! Glad you saved those images, so say this (above) in your WS.

Yes, promise. We help people win, some 99% of the time here when well defended cases are assisted from start till finish and we know things about some locations and can suggest things about certain parking firms, to use.

Also, we might be able to find more concurrent signage pics for you.

Yes - intend to use those pics in the Witness Statement.

The company is HX Car Park Management LTD, and the Car Park is the Westgate Arcade Car Park in Horton Street, Halifax.

Is it OK to post the Witness Statement edited for comment when completed - sorry for all the questions - we should all be out in the sun enjoying the weather, and not dealing with these leeches :-)

Coupon-mad

HX do not use POFA compliant NTKs:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119328

This argument only works (of course) if your wife is defending as registered keeper, not driver.

CLUE: the important giveaway paragraph ends with the word 'driver'.

And here's a case where a poster won v HX on that basis, explained the omission well to the Judge:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73805827#Comment_73805827

Or has the driver been admitted?

Show us the draft WS (evidence/exhibits being referred to by number, as you go).

Here's one someone is working on:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5711874/es-parking-enforcment-ltd-ticket-face-down-charge-notice&page=3

...as you can see, it really is an easy stage, just a statement of facts - but in your wife's case it depends on whether your wife is defending as driver or keeper. I would do the latter if she can, the driver does not have to be named, the burden lies with HX.

Stevey

Coupon-mad wrote: »

HX do not use POFA compliant NTKs:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119328

This argument only works (of course) if your wife is defending as registered keeper, not driver.

CLUE: the important giveaway paragraph ends with the word 'driver'.

And here's a case where a poster won v HX on that basis, explained the omission well to the Judge:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73805827#Comment_73805827

Or has the driver been admitted?

Sorry - I knew this, but my wife is not happy to use this approach, as whilst our defence suggests a defence as Keeper, my wife refuses to use this approach as she knows the truth, and will admit to being driver if asked. Therefore current wording of witness statement admits to being driver.

More info on whether HX have the required Locus Standi - the owner of the land (company on the title deeds) is called Due West Limited (Incorporated in Cayman Islands B.W.I.). I would think that makes a transfer of authority even less likely.

Coupon-mad

and will admit to being driver if asked.

Fine, I don't disagree with that, it's honest. I do disagree with not putting in POFA as a point, especially in a P&D car park where the tariff was underpaid and there seem less straws to grab.

As you are the lay rep, you will be speaking, not your wife (albeit a Judge might ask her a direct question and if that happens, do not lie).

But if they Judge asks YOU, then you could say that this is up to the Claimant to prove and it's not for the Defendant to assist the Claimant's case, which does not rely upon the POFA because they can't.

Which court?

Stevey

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Fine, I don't disagree with that, it's honest. I do disagree with not putting in POFA as a point, especially in a P&D car park where the tariff was underpaid and there seem less straws to grab.

As you are the lay rep, you will be speaking, not your wife (albeit a Judge might ask her a direct question and if that happens, do not lie).

But if they Judge asks YOU, then you could say that this is up to the Claimant to prove and it's not for the Defendant to assist the Claimant's case, which does not rely upon the POFA because they can't.

Which court?

We asked for our nearest (Huddersfield) in the DQ, but it was transferred to Bradford County Court, maybe they handle more of the HX jurisdiction?

I hear you on POFA - the other key point is our original post on Pepipoo was called "PCN - Lost the Letter". We don't have the original NTK, so can't put it in the evidence bundle and demonstrate POFA non-compliance.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can.

They have to show the NTK anyway, but you can pre-empt it and put them to strict proof.

You can show a close up screenshot of the wording on that one from the thread I linked and say as one of her points in the WS, that whilst she has mislaid the Notice to Keeper, she has researched it and found that this Claimant does not use the POFA so have no grounds to pursue her as registered keeper (see evidence #11 - or whatever - which would be the close up of the typical HX wording saying they 'assume' the keeper is the driver).

You can also include barrister and parking law expert (erstwhile PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator) Henry Greenslade's words from the POPLA Annual Report 2015, that state clearly that there is no such lawful presumption.

You do not have to say, unless the Judge directly asks your wife. If that happens then she can say she was, but otherwise, it's the Claimant's claim to prove.

To see other defences and WS that use that piece of evidence (one page from the report) search the forum for 'Greenslade defence Annual Report presumption'.