One Parking Solution PCN + Gladstones - Parked for 8mins, LBC for £208!

Coupon-mad

It'll never be covered but at least it gives the Judge some bits to cross out, to reduce the costs a bit when you win. Am I right that we've already identified the NTK as a non-POFA one that omits 9(2)f POFA 'keeper will be liable' wording?

Throw that into the next reply then, if so. It justifies your costs as you can say you are the wrong Defendant, a bit like your other case. Thus you have warned them clearly in advance.

StubbornGoat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It'll never be covered but at least it gives the Judge some bits to cross out, to reduce the costs a bit when you win. Am I right that we've already identified the NTK as a non-POFA one that omits 9(2)f POFA 'keeper will be liable' wording?

Throw that into the next reply then, if so. It justifies your costs as you can say you are the wrong Defendant, a bit like your other case. Thus you have warned them clearly in advance.

Hmm having had another look at it, I'm not sure this is POFA compliant.

https://i.postimg.cc/BZBpz4w0/OPS-NTK.jpg

The part of POFA which reads:

warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

This part has not been mentioned exactly as required.

Coupon-mad

As I think we identified ages back, that's not a POFA NTK and the big clue is their final para on the front, that says they are reduced 'assuming the keeper was the driver'.

That is the polar opposite of POFA. They have no legal grounds to pursue you.

StubbornGoat

..They also (regardless of my lack of passing on the drivers details) cannot have "reasonable assumption" that I (as the registered keeper) was the one driving the car, because they literally have proof which shows that it was not me!

Coupon-mad

Yup, you got it.

They have no lawful grounds to continue, so hit them with a 4 figure high costs warning now, and talk about the case 'meeting the high bar for unreasonableness' and that you have appeared and won in front of DJ Ellis at Worthing already last month and beat that parking firm based on a POFA argument...and relish a second go.

StubbornGoat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yup, you got it.

They have no lawful grounds to continue, so hit them with a 4 figure high costs warning now, and talk about the case 'meeting the high bar for unreasonableness' and that you have appeared and won in front of DJ Ellis at Worthing already this month and beat that parking firm based on a POFA argument...and relish a second go.

What do you reckon? Something like this?

Dear X

If my last email was not enough to convince your client to cancel this PCN - I will add that the fact that you are pursuing me as the driver when you clearly have evidence that proves otherwise absolutely exceeds the high bar for unreasonableness.

Not only that but your clients Notice to Keeper does not comply with POFA and you have absolutely no lawful grounds to continue wasting my time with emails and letters.

As you may know, I appeared in and won a recent case in front of DJ Ellis at Worthing already this month and beat another one of your clients, UKCPM, based on a POFA argument.

As I mentioned before, should your client decide to pursue me as the driver despite holding evidence which proves I am not, then I will be claiming full costs as a litigant in person. The last time I was pursued, I claimed £1,552.65 in costs. With this case following a very similar path, I expect that figure to be around the same, if not more.

Yours Faithfully

Thank you for your suggestion CM. Though I don't think adding the fact that I am relishing another go (although I am) is a good idea as it would seem as if going to court is what I want to happen and would not be able to claim for any distress etc for their unreasonable behaviour.?

SG

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me.

Debdaisy95

Cutting a long story short...My husband needed to pick up a long roll of carpet from his Grandma's flat. He needed to have a permit to park in the private car park. When he got to the car park he parked in the bay, however his  long wheel base van went over the bay markings by about 2 feet. It took him less than 2 hours to remove the carpet, so he was parked in the bay for less than 2 hours. He received a ticket  for not displaying a permit, they dropped that as the permit was clearly displayed. They then picked up on the van not fitting inside the bay markings.  The case has been bought about by a firm which is quickly gaining a very bad reputation !  We have refused to pay the notice  and it has now been  2 years and has been escalated to the small claims court. Do we have a case  ? 

Coupon-mad

There is always a case to defend a PPC claim, but this is an old 2019 thread and it's not yours, so please remove your post (this is called 'hijacking' someone else's thread) and read the first threads on the forum instead.

Then (ONLY after reading the pinned sticky advice threads, first) start your own thread. 

My signature (below) tells you how to click back to page one and read the NEWBIES THREAD post #2 and the TEMPLATE DEFENCE thread.  But please delete your reply from StubbornGoat's 2019 thread first.  This is not the place to post about your case.