Court Claim - Letter attached - Urgent

Burnhill

KeithP wrote: »

In other words, if UKCPM's NtK is POFA compliant then the keeper is liable whether they were the driver or not. If the keeper was the driver then there is no point in hiding that. The Defendant may well find it easier defending as the driver - no need for hearsay evidence.

So as the Defendant wasn't the driver in our case, that doesn't change anything and we should continue per normal with the defence? No need to point to the fact that the Defendant wasn't the driver?

Burnhill

Redx wrote: »

doesnt matter if the defendant was driving or not, IF THEY COMPLIED WITH POFA2012

by complying with POFA2012 they can make the keeper liable regardless

Ok, cheers!

KeithP

Burnhill wrote: »

So as the Defendant wasn't the driver in our case, that doesn't change anything and we should continue per normal with the defence? No need to point to the fact that the Defendant wasn't the driver?

Not too sure I understand the question.

But yes, 'continue per normal with the defence'.

Redx

you can certainly point out that the defendant was not the driver, in which case the defendant is looking to prove that the PPC has no case

one of the ways this is done is if UKCPM failed POFA2012, otherwise the keeper is liable ANYWAY

the other legal aspects include no landowner contract, poor and inadequate signage , using laws and precedents to try to win the case , any IPC COP failures and any other "technicality"

if UKCPM have passed all the various hurdles , then in theory they win

so the defendant has to have a defence stating why the claimant has no case and putting them to strict proof of their legal reasons for pursuing this claim

BEAVIS lost 3 times and failed, so sometimes there is no winning on a technicality , sometimes a defendant is bang to rights

your task, if you choose to accept it, is to write a defence that mentions these things in order for the defendant to win on a technicality

UKCPM have to prove they have a case and to win on a point of law

bear in mind that ever since the keeper received this NTK, they thought that UKCPM had no case and therefore the PCN went unpaid

the question is ,why did the keeper think that UKCPM did not have a valid claim ?

the answer is more likely to be "I was not the driver" , which means they were ignorant of POFA2012 , or they thought that UKCPM had failed POFA2012


it would be easier if we could advise the defendant directly, as they are the person being taken to court, not you

Burnhill

Question: If the retailer was not trading on the day that the alleged parking offence occurred, would 'No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge' apply? If I understand this correctly, doesn't this mean that there were no losses to the company, therefore Beavis case doesn't apply?

Burnhill

This is the sign currently at the car park:

There was another one of these at the car park too, with the white paint scratched, revealing 'Card payments are subject to £1.50 processing fee'. I'm convinced it wasn't painted over at the time of the alleged offence, not that it probably makes any difference.

There was another sign also (saying 'Master Tiles Parking only), right next to the one above, at the time of the alleged offence (as seen on Google street view three months later): https://i.imgur.com/UHPtogX.png

Is there anything I can argue about the wording here? How about the fact that there was confusing signs, one saying 'Master Tiles Parking Only' and another saying 'Authorised vehicles only'. What about the fact that I had been a customer previously?

Also, I'm not convinced that UKCPM has authority at the car park as I suspect that the owner leases the car park. I might be wrong on this though.

Burnhill

This is pretty much what the car park would've looked like at the time of the alleged offence:

Coupon-mad

Burnhill wrote: »

Question: If the retailer was not trading on the day that the alleged parking offence occurred, would 'No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge' apply?

Yes. A parking firm MUST show a legitimate interest, to excuse/save from being struck out, the extortionate charging of what is clearly an otherwise unconscionable sum.

This appears to be a case of trespass dressed up as if it were a contractual 'parking charge' and as such it can be argued by a D to be an unrecoverable penalty.

And the PPC would have to show that they did have a 'legitimate interest'. Bear in mind there could be such an argument made. They might say they had a legitimate instruction from the leaseholder, to deter car parking out of hours and causing a nuisance, noise, littering, even making it a crime meeting spot or staying there overnight and taking up spaces the next morning. It's a bit convoluted but they could try to show a legit interest.

You are right that they must! But don't make that too obvious in your defence, don't bang on about it, effectively tipping them off what to say!

If I understand this correctly, doesn't this mean that there were no losses to the company, therefore Beavis case doesn't apply?

No. Don't mention 'loss' it is not about loss.

As the Defendant was not the driver she should state that where she admits she was the registered keeper.

And she can and should mention the POFA, but not try to say the PCN was non-POFA/had no such wording, because that's not likely to be the case (you can easily check for yourself!).

The reason why she should mention the POFA schedule 4, is to state that there was no 'relevant contract' (no consideration flowed and no agreement) and no 'relevant obligation' either, and no 'adequate notice' of the parking charge (signs).

Read PACE v Lengyel, in the Parking Prankster's case law pages, but be warned not to click on any other links on the PP's website; links are there which cannot be vouched for here.

KeithP

A sign that says "AUTHORISED VEHICLES ONLY" is a prohibitive sign.

That sign clearly is not capable of forming the basis of a contract.

Coupon-mad

Yep, like in PACE v Lengyel where he had no permit, IIRC.