PLEASE HELP! Court Claim for residential parking fines!

Lunek

Will the council provide the information just like that?

KeithP

Lunek wrote: »

Will the council provide the information just like that?

A simple phone call will answer that.

Lunek

I got the report from HM Land Registry. The company they stated has been mentioned in there. I don’t understand much of it. So many names. And looks like someone else bought it this year.

nosferatu1001

and the council?

Lunek

I have not spoken to them. You think they will be able to tell me who was the landowner at the time of contraventions?

Also is there any skeletons available anywhere.
I only found one. The one by Loadsofchildren is not there anymore

Lunek

Also their contract with landowner says:

- Initial Period: 12 months beginning on the start date. -

I cannot see anything in the contract that would say that it is a rolling contract. Should that be stated in there.

Lunek

Please have a quick read through and let me know what you think.. thank you

PREAMBLE

This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated 04/09/2018
2. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:
(a) The identity of the driver and burden of proof
(b) No contract
(c) Prominence, illegible terms & confusing signage
(d) Conduct


SUBMISSIONS
3. The Defendant admits that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
4. The Defendant submits that they were not the driver at the times of the alleged contraventions.
5. The Defendant submits that the bright, alarmist letters were seen as a scam or spam, and recognised at the material time that they were not from an authority such as local council or the police.
6. It is submitted that the Defendant did not appeal the PCN and was under no obligation to do so as the keeper. The Defendant correctly assumed at the material time (and to-date) that the issue was of no relevance to them.
7. The Defendant submits they did not receive the PCN either at the material time or otherwise.
8. The Defendant was a resident at the location in question.

DRIVER IDENTITY AND BURDEN OF PROOF
9. The Defendant refutes the allegations by the Claimant that they were the driver at the material time either directly or by presumption. The Claimant has no evidence to the contrary and the accusations are merely ‘hear-say’; not a factual reciting of a witness who was present at the material time.
10. “The defendant denies he is the driver and the claimant has absolutely no evidence that he was the driver. There is no assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. That is trite law...” (District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds 2016).
11. “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.” (Mr Henry Greenslade - POPLA Annual Report 2015).
12. The Defendant cannot indenting the Driver for the dates in question.
13. There is no statute in law that would require the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land.
14. The registered keeper of a vehicle is required to furnish the Police with the identity of the driver under statute:
“(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police...”
15. “...a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time” (Mr Henry Greenslade - POPLA).
16. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the burden of proof for identifying the driver should not lay with the Defendant.

NO CONTRACT
17. Referring to the Claimant’s witness’s statement in para #15 “an offer was made to park” within the site, ‘Permit holders only’ cannot possibly be an offer to park and by extension, no consideration or acceptance.
18. The sign is forbidding therefore no contract could have existed with any driver at the material time.

PROMINENCE, ILLEGIBLE TERMS & CONFUSING SIGNAGE
19. The Defendant disputes the witness’s judgement that the signs, or more specifically the terms and conditions, were highly prominent. In general, prominence can be a subjective affair in which colours, fonts, height, size and ambient light all play a significant role in determining if ‘something’ is prominent.
20. Significant proportion of core terms are exceptionally small especially when attempting to read from a moving vehicle (as shown in Claimant’s bundle).
21. The witness has never observed the signs on-site and cannot state as fact that the signs are prominent given the confusing signage.
22. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court how the overall depiction of a sign being ‘prominent’ is significantly reduced by using a font of small size which makes core terms illegible from a moving vehicle. Conflicting signage also causes misperception.

CONDUCT
23. The Claimant seeks to apportion liability to the Defendant for not replying to their letters or identifying the driver, and suggests that this conduct caused the Claimant costs.
24. The Claimant however has not provided the proof of any loss or damage as stated in their Particulars of Claim.
25. Defendant denies any debt being owed to the Claimant.
26. The Defendant is a resident at the location in question therefore if they were the Driver there would have been more than 5 parking charges issued within the time of contraventions as the car would have been parked in that car park every day not just on several occasions.
27. The Defendant has demonstrated to the court that the Claimant has been wholly unreasonable.

Coupon-mad

12. The Defendant cannot indenting the Driver for the dates in question.

identify...

Lunek

Thank you. My head is all over the place

Le_Kirk

Not sure what you are trying to say with this: -

13. There is no statute in law that would require the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land.

Surely the driver was driving a car not a parking charge; maybe you meant ....... identify the driver of a car subject of a/the parking charge.