Counterclaim advice needed, please. Claim Form Received from Northampton CCBC. Bizarre PCN case!

nosferatu1001

How will they reveal the drivers identity?
Just state "the driver parked"...

Bearing in mind there is no I, he, she in a defence - it is all third person anyway - this would look good.

It is worded the same way it is always worded. Failure to meet the requirements of POFA means no keeper liability, I am the keeper, so I have no liability. You have to state how they failed POFA.

JungTheForeman

Understood, thanks...

But while the parking permit shows only the valid vehicle registration number (no name mentioned), the wage slip from July 2017 (showing the £30 deduction for staff car parking) gives the name of the defendant and no vehicle registration number.

Therefore, is it best to omit the wage slip from the defence?

waamo

Does the wage slip show who was driving on the day?

JungTheForeman

Nope, anyone could have been driving on the day.

So just to clarify: If the driver has never been identified, does the keeper become liable for the PCN? In any circumstances?

Britannia failed to send the keeper a NtK within 56 days (it actually took 112 days), so is a valid defence (properly worded):

"This PCN was issued such a long time ago now, over 18 months ago, and the defendant simply cannot recall who was driving / parking the vehicle on that day."

nosferatu1001

IF they have met the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable, AND they do not know the name and serviceable address for the driver, THEN and ONLY THEN is the keeper liable.

1) NO, you have to introduce the keeper defence corerctly. Its literally on dozens of defences here.

If ANYONE could have been driving, how does the wage slip prove who was driving?
It reveals A possible driver, not THE possible driver!

waamo

Look for the Bargepole (a respected member here) concise defence. It's the basis of most of the defences here. Make sure you include POFA non-complaince and explain why. Show the POFA wording.

You have been directed to the Newbies thread. The second post should be almost burnt into your memory by now. Study it carefully it has all the information you need.

JungTheForeman

Thanks again for the assistance. After a bit of digging, another update... I'll try to be as succinct as possible:

1. The car park in question is a NHS staff car park. It's controlled, patrolled, and has a barrier entry. Most of the time, it's actually not too easy to park here without a valid permit. I have parked here for years without any problem (other than 20 July 2017), and continue to park here to this day.
2. The PPC took management of this car park in early summer 2017. Prior to this, it was NHS controlled.
3. At the time of the contravention (20 July 2017), I was, as far as I'm concerned, displaying a valid parking permit. The PPC will no doubt argue otherwise.
4. On 20 July 2017, the PPC targeted this car park, issuing a PCN to pretty much every vehicle. As far as I can make out, they did this PRIOR to issuing the "new" valid parking permits. No vehicle was displaying the "new" valid permit because they had not yet been issued!
5. Essentially, a money grab. Many of my NHS friends and colleagues have paid, the majority at the threatening debt recovery stage. A few of us have hung on in there, ignoring everything so far. Now we are at the CCBC stage. I have submitted my AoS and I am now compiling my defence.
6. The current hospital management haven't been too helpful so far. I don't know how I can prove that the "new" valid parking permits hadn't been issued by 20 July 2017. Maybe the fact that not a single vehicle was displaying one on that date is proof enough? I can get witness statements from my friends and colleagues to support this.
7. As I see it, the only concrete proof I have is my July 2017 payslip, showing a £30 deduction for staff parking. I also have an email, but it's not from the correct department.

My issue now: I've already dedicated hours to this, and I'm not finding it much fun. I've really no interest in taking time off work for a Court appearance, putting forward my defence in Court, witness statements, etc, etc. The whole thing is just ridiculous!

So, should I pursue the route of trying to convince a judge that I was absolutely legally-parked on that day, and that the PCN was, at best, spurious?

Or should I pursue the "Technicalities / POFA / Bargepole / taking photos of the sineage / etc" route, and try to get the whole thing thrown out and dismissed prior to even getting to Court? This route would be my preference, but only if the experts here think that it's pretty certain to succeed!

waamo

This is a money grab and it's highly likely it will go to court. As earlier look for the Bargepole defence. Understand it though. Don't just copy it blindly.

You can charge them for your time and effort.

JungTheForeman

Hello again experts. Your feedback on the proposed defence below would be very much appreciated:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD T/A BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in an allocated bay at XXXX Hospital – XXXX car park.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN. This is incorrect; the alleged PCN allowed the driver of the vehicle 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN. No evidence has been supplied by the Claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land, nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The Defendant therefore chooses to defend this claim only as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the PCN in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the Statute, including adequate notice of the parking charge, and prescribed documents served in time, and with mandatory wording. It is submitted that the Claimant has failed to do this.

5. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ (Parking Charge Notice) received by the Defendant (registered keeper) was dated XXXX. The Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 8(5) clearly specifies the time limits for serving a ‘Notice to Keeper’. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. POFA, 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 8(5) states that the relevant period for the purposes of issuing a ‘Notice to Keeper’ is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. The alleged PCN was issued to the driver of the vehicle on XXXX. The ‘Notice to Keeper’, issued by the Claimant and received by the Defendant, was dated XXXX. This constitutes a time lapse of over 100 days. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ was not served within the mandatory 57 day period, and the Claimant (registered keeper) therefore accepts no liability for the alleged PCN.

6. Furthermore, 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.

7. Furthermore, the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 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 £85.00. The Particulars of Claim includes an additional £60.00, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim contravenes the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 8(5), 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

JungTheForeman wrote: »

I am an NHS nurse. On 20 July 2017, I parked in the same NHS staff car park where I have parked for many years previously, and where I have parked during every shift since. On this particular day, Britannia Parking decided to issue a PCN not only to my car, but to dozens of other cars belonging to my NHS staff colleagues. All were parked completely legitimately.

Re. above: The contravention was a simple 'failure to display a valid ticket/permit/voucher'. But this is complete nonsense; my valid parking permit was clearly displayed in the windscreen as always. Many other colleagues received the same - they all displayed valid permits, too. For some reason, Britannia suddenly decided to dish out PCNs like confetti on this day.

In view of this, I VERY strongly recommend you re-write the defence as driver and stop trying to hide behind being the keeper.