LBC Gladstones Uni Parking Ticket - What next?

Coupon-mad

do I need to send my photographs with my defence at the same time?

You'd know the answer is NO, if you'd re-read bargepole's ''Court Procedure'' thread that I link for everyone to read, in the 'what happens when' section of the NEWBIES thread.

It's vital you know what to expect and do when, as defence is not the only stage before a hearing.

Why do you want to remove the lines in bold? They tell the right story, don't they?

Freddieab

Coupon-mad - Thanks for the reply. The paragraph is true but indicates the keeper knows who was driving. (Also, read the bit about directions questions etc after posting)

Freddieab

So here is the final statement. A couple more bits added. Being emailed tomorrow morning.


[FONT=&quot]1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a bay at a location claimed to be XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, in breach of terms of parking stipulated on the signage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked parking spaces. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where an authorised visitor is, or is not, allowed to park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4. The location ‘XXXX XXXX’ has not been clearly identified from maps and is believed to refer to an unmarked cul-de-sac adjacent to XXXX XXXX. The postcode incorporates the AXXX, XXXXX Road, and the aforementioned cul-de-sac. However, location has no road signs or signs relating to the location referred to as XXXX XXXX.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. On the day in question the defendant states that there was more than one person insured on the car at the time.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

6. The Defendant has no liability as he is the Keeper of the vehicle, and UKCPM has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 Section 4 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

a) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

b) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability in the POPLA Annual Report 2015: "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort".

7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The claimants own photographic evidence shows the location to be very poorly lit, if not almost completely dark. The Claimants own photographs of the signage shows just how unclear they are and how difficult to read they are, even with the benefit of what appears to be a torch or vehicle headlights. These signs also appear to require that a valid tax disc is displayed in order to fulfil the requirement to park. This is impossible to comply with since the use of tax discs was abolished in October 2014.

9. The Defendant took photographs of UKCPM signage at what is believed to be the location in question after receiving the claim form. These photos show the current poor condition of the signs in the parking locations and at the entrance to the location. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read it would be unable to do so easily. Further the signs are not illuminated and so impossible to read at night when the car was parked. It is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]10. The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a) (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located near the site entrance is unlit and therefore impossible to see at night by a driver in a passing vehicle.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 referred to as ‘Contractual Costs’, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

13. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £171.23 including interest is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover as it is a cost to the business, therefore, cannot be reclaimed twice.

14. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Statement of Truth:

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

The keeper is allowed to know who the driver was but still not name them.

Read Henry Greenslade's words about this aspect of law, in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY section (which we encourage people like you to use in evidence later).