Countrywide Parking Management ltd Appeal Denied

Umkomaas

Weren't you advised to shorten the paras you were putting together yourself (paras 2 & 3)?  You use the rest of the template to follow from there, unaltered, or if you are altering anything you show what you've changed, and why. 

You jump from para 3 to para 5. So that needs to be addressed. 

Coupon-mad

This is hard to comment on because you've copied a residential defence that mainly relies on the person denying being the driver, and you haven't used the forum template at all.  

Because of not using the template defence, you've missed out other points that the template covers and have copied a very old statement of truth.

Also I am confused why Dad is denying being the driver?

He can't just copy an old example verbatim - and I'm not sure why he didn't use the forum template and add this in the facts paragraph:

windscreen PCN from Countrywide Parking Management ltd. (IPC member) in a residential parking. He had the permit displayed but they claimed it had not been there and provided as evidence a poor quality photos taken in the dark with only a few showing the number plate and none of them showing the PCN stuck to the window or anything that could prove the car was parked in the residential car park.

baart77

Ok, let me get this right, when he first got the ticket I read the various threads and my understanding was that you should not admit to being a driver and let them pursue you as a keeper, so to admit he was a driver now would be an own goal? I think I got it wrong with what you mean about point 2 and 3 and thought the defence I found in that thread was a good example of how to expand on the key points. Will get it corrected. 

Coupon-mad

I read the various threads and my understanding was that you should not admit to being a driver and let them pursue you as a keeper, so to admit he was a driver now would be an own goal?

It's never an own goal in a court defence, especially if this is his home car park where he lives and probably parked, and has other points of defence (primacy of contract).  Any Judge would suss he parked the car and to pretend he didn't (worse, to deny it in court!) is very dangerous ground. 

Absolute no-no to deny!  That defence was written for someone who was not driving.

His facts and some of what you gleaned from @Johnersh's older defence can certainly go into the template defence as paragraphs 3 onwards, but not the stuff about 'prove I was driving!' and in para 2 he should say 'keeper and driver'.

baart77

So do I get this right that only the below fits into points 2 and 3 of the template ?

"The defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence and no responsibility can be assumed. 

 
Firstly:

- The driver displayed the permit correctly. The photos of the car were taken at night with a very limited amount of light available the Claimant can not say they are a sufficient proof of there not being a permit or that the photos of the car were taken in the location stated in the Notice to Keeper. Some of them can not even be assumed to be photos of defendants car as the registration plate is either not visible or is impossible to read. The Claimant has failed to provide a proof either that the parking charge was attached to the windscreen or elsewhere on the day of the alleged breach. 

- If the claimant alleges that the driver failed to display the permit then the defendant challenges the claimant to prove that sufficient grace period has been applied as per IPC Code of Conduct which Countrywide Parking Management is a member of. The Notice to Keeper does not show the time of entry or exit or the length of time the car was parked there allegedly without the permit displayed. In the further communication received after the alleged incident the claimant alleged that the car was observed at 22.43.  It can not be therefore claimed that the driver had been  "allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site."

 Furthermore:

- The driver was allowed the right to park by the current occupier and leaseholder, whose tenancy agreement forms primacy of contract.

        -    Defendant’s tenancy agreement says nothing about requirement to display a permit.

        -    If primacy of contract is disputed by the claimant, then the signage on site needs to be plentiful and easily visible, or no contract can be entered into knowingly by the driver. It clearly is not the case in this situation. There has only ever been one sign, difficult to notice during the day and impossible at night. The claimant has not installed any signage at the entrance to this day. 

- The Claimant has failed to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. "

Appreciate that dealing with another person who seems to not quite get it might be frustrating for you thank you for your patience. I am trying. Please comment. 

baart77

Sorry, we must have posted at the same time and I didn't see your comment., I will address your points again. However I have used the defence he was not the driver in the correspondence with BW Legal. Is it likely to be used against us?

baart77

Correction, I have gone through the letters and the argument about not being the driver has only been used in the appeal letter. Later they said they would be pursuing my dad as a keeper relying on POFA. So if they want to pursue him as a keeper and now we admit he was a driver does it change anything?

Coupon-mad

So do I get this right that only the below fits into points 2 and 3 of the template ?
"The defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence and no responsibility can be assumed. 

Now I am really confused.  Wasn't he driving then?  TRUE?

I thought it was obvious he parked the car at his home, which is why I said:

 in para 2 he should say 'keeper and driver'.

baart77

I wrote this before I read your post. He was the driver but based on the advice regarding appeal at the intial stage we never admitted he was and BW Legal wanted to pursue him as a keeper not driver. I can amend this but just not sure if this can create confusion in court

Redx

Read what Bargepole posted about deciding on if a defence should say either

Keeper but not the driver

Or 

Keeper and driver

Or

Driver

Etc

You do not want anyone to commit perjury or be found to be fundamentally dishonest in court

Lies or untruths are easily exposed in court

It's not clear to me on reading the last few posts as to liability , if it's confusing to us , it will be confusing in court , so will lead to direct questions like

Mr defendant , were you the driver on the day in question ?  Yes or no ?

What would the honest and truthful answer be ?

If he was the driver , POFA won't assist him