Help BW Legal/ Excel Court Claims

bargepole

mrniceguy18 wrote: »

Thankyou , I was confused as after doing some reading of Daz Claytons case he got an N460 which he sent off with the N146.

If this is not needed then i am going to go ahead and fill in the N146 and get it sent off ASAP.

You don't want form N146, that's a request for a Warrant of Arrest.

The correct form is N164.

mrniceguy18

Hi Guys,

Thankyou to everyone who has commented so far it has been a real help !

if anyone feels there is anything worth adding/changing please feel free to comment.

Here is my first draft for appeal.

Appeal

The hearing commenced with DJ xxxx stating that I would be allowed to appeal if I felt she had made an error in law with her decision.

I make this appeal upon the following grounds:

Evidence from my own oral testimony accompanied by Insurance documents showing that I am the main driver on another vehicle lent weight on showing that I was not the driver on the material date and not the contrary.

The district Judge erred in law with her judgement as the claimant had not complied with POFA 2012 which is the only method in law which a Private parking company can pursue a registered keeper for any debt owed by a driver.

The District Judge erred in law by finding that the criminal case of CPS v AJH Films created a binding precedent leading to Judgment for Claimant. This case has no relevance whatsoever in circumstances where the driver was not an employee of the registered keeper, furthermore any agency argument has no basis against a consumer keeper.

The judge fell into error with her decision in comparing not responding to a private parking company with her reasoning about a driver committing a criminal traffic offence which is an irrelevant comparison.

The District judge has erred in law as no lawful assumption can be made that the registered keeper was the driver, POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade’s words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' states that ‘there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and Private Parking Companies should never suggest such a thing’

The District judge fell into error with her decision based on the fact that I never responded to the claimant with the driver’s details. POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade’s words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' also states that “keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies”.

The District Judge made an error in her decision as the claimant had shown no proof of who the driver was on the material date & therefore had no basis to show that I had entered into contract other than a presumption.

The District Judge made an error in her decision allowing the claimant to act on reasonable presumption as they had openly stated in their witness statement that they do not rely on POFA 2012 and therefore had no basis in law to pursue a registered keeper.

System

The learned judge made a key error by reversing the long established tenet that the burden is on the Claimant to prove the parties to the case. They could never be such proof as defendant was not the driver on the day.

[Deleted User]

The district Judge erred in law with her judgement as the claimant had not complied with POFA 2012 which is the only method in law which a Private parking company can pursue a registered keeper for any debt owed by a driver.
No. As you now know, the PPC can perfectly well allege that you were the driver, is permitted to do so and did so. POFA is a mechanism the claimant could have used to transfer liability to you, but they appear not to have relied on that.

The District Judge erred in law by finding that the criminal case of CPS v AJH Films created a binding precedent leading to Judgment for Claimant. This case has no relevance whatsoever in circumstances where the driver was not an employee of the registered keeper, furthermore any agency argument has no basis against a consumer keeper.
Did the DJ make the finding that s/he was bound by this? CPS most certainly isn't a criminal case and if the case wasn't cited by the claimant at the hearing, it can't be the basis for the decision against you.

The judge fell into error with her decision in comparing not responding to a private parking company with her reasoning about a driver committing a criminal traffic offence which is an irrelevant comparison.
Better. but I'd suggest "entirely different to the facts at issue, where the road traffic act in certain circumstances requires a keeper to name a driver (eg. For speeding offences). Had parliament intended to impose similar obligations in civil matters they would have done so. No adverse inference should have been drawn from the defendants unwillingness to name the driver."

The District judge has erred in law as no lawful assumption can be made that the registered keeper was the driver, POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslades words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' states that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and Private Parking Companies should never suggest such a thing
This is the same point. It is also not an authority that the DJ needs to follow nor the law, but one person's statement of it.

The District judge fell into error with her decision based on the fact that I never responded to the claimant with the drivers details. POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslades words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' also states that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies
See comment directly above.

The District Judge made an error in her decision as the claimant had shown no proof of who the driver was on the material date & therefore had no basis to show that I had entered into contract other than a presumption.
I worry about this. Essentially the issue is credibility. If s/he disbelieved you that is enough to tip the balance and make a finding of fact.
The best you can probably muster is something like this (but others should chip in with any better version): "the claimant presented no objective nor credible evidence that the defendant was the driver other than an assertion in the pleaded case. The defendant presented objective evidence that the vehicle was used by multiple drivers in the form of insurance documentation. In the absence of any positive evidence, the claimant had failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities and should have failed. The finding against the defendant is, accordingly, unsafe."

The District Judge made an error in her decision allowing the claimant to act on reasonable presumption as they had openly stated in their witness statement that they do not rely on POFA 2012 and therefore had no basis in law to pursue a registered keeper.
As stated above they can presume and allege you are the driver. That was their case! The claimant is permitted to put his case. This will turn on whether your arguments on the day were in fact good enough to have rebutted that. Subject, of course, to the fact that the claimant had the uphill battle - it is their case to prove.

mrniceguy18

Johnersh wrote: »

The district Judge erred in law with her judgement as the claimant had not complied with POFA 2012 which is the only method in law which a Private parking company can pursue a registered keeper for any debt owed by a driver.
No. As you now know, the PPC can perfectly well allege that you were the driver, is permitted to do so and did so. POFA is a mechanism the claimant could have used to transfer liability to you, but they appear not to have relied on that.

Okay thankyou for this as I was under the impression that a PPC could only pursue a RK if using POFA , would it be even worth mentioning POFA if the claimant isn't relying on it ?

Johnersh wrote: »

The District Judge erred in law by finding that the criminal case of CPS v AJH Films created a binding precedent leading to Judgment for Claimant. This case has no relevance whatsoever in circumstances where the driver was not an employee of the registered keeper, furthermore any agency argument has no basis against a consumer keeper.
Did the DJ make the finding that s/he was bound by this? CPS most certainly isn't a criminal case and if the case wasn't cited by the claimant at the hearing, it can't be the basis for the decision against you.

when she concluded she mentioned about the claimant relying on CPS and sorry I don't know why i've put criminal case as i know its not.

Johnersh wrote: »

The judge fell into error with her decision in comparing not responding to a private parking company with her reasoning about a driver committing a criminal traffic offence which is an irrelevant comparison.
Better. but I'd suggest "entirely different to the facts at issue, where the road traffic act in certain circumstances requires a keeper to name a driver (eg. For speeding offences). Had parliament intended to impose similar obligations in civil matters they would have done so. No adverse inference should have been drawn from the defendants unwillingness to name the driver."

Thankyou i will change this to what you have suggested

Johnersh wrote: »

The District judge has erred in law as no lawful assumption can be made that the registered keeper was the driver, POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslades words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' states that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and Private Parking Companies should never suggest such a thing
This is the same point. It is also not an authority that the DJ needs to follow nor the law, but one person's statement of it.

how would i word this ? should i change to ' The DJ has fell into error with her decision' ?

Johnersh wrote: »

The District Judge made an error in her decision as the claimant had shown no proof of who the driver was on the material date & therefore had no basis to show that I had entered into contract other than a presumption.
I worry about this. Essentially the issue is credibility. If s/he disbelieved you that is enough to tip the balance and make a finding of fact.
The best you can probably muster is something like this (but others should chip in with any better version): "the claimant presented no objective nor credible evidence that the defendant was the driver other than an assertion in the pleaded case. The defendant presented objective evidence that the vehicle was used by multiple drivers in the form of insurance documentation. In the absence of any positive evidence, the claimant had failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities and should have failed. The finding against the defendant is, accordingly, unsafe."

Thankyou i will change to what you have suggested

Johnersh wrote: »

The District Judge made an error in her decision allowing the claimant to act on reasonable presumption as they had openly stated in their witness statement that they do not rely on POFA 2012 and therefore had no basis in law to pursue a registered keeper.
As stated above they can presume and allege you are the driver. That was their case! The claimant is permitted to put his case. This will turn on whether your arguments on the day were in fact good enough to have rebutted that. Subject, of course, to the fact that the claimant had the uphill battle - it is their case to prove.

my main argument was POFA which as i've realised can lose you a case if concentrated on too much, i did mention that the claimant had no proof that i was the driver.

Coupon-mad

This is so similar, are you this poster?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5775293/help-2-court-claims-bw-legal-excel-parking

Which court and Judge did you have, and on which date please?