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

JungTheForeman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

Thanks Coupon-mad. Could you explain why you very strongly recommend this?

Britannia will argue that it was not the correct permit displayed. They had recently taken over the management of the car park and had not yet issued 'new' valid permits prior to the date of the alleged contravention.

Do you think it's best for me to drag a number of friends and colleagues (all NHS nurses) down to Court on a particular date in order to stand as witnesses?

Out of interest, what is your issue in fighting a claim on a technicality?

JungTheForeman

Furthermore, contrary to all of the great advice offered by the experts on here so far, your advice is to finally admit to being the driver at the time of the alleged contravention (whether that's true or not)?

D_P_Dance

Why should they be able to get away with this scam,

Hopefully they won't for much longer. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

JungTheForeman

To the experts here...

Any further thoughts on my proposed Defence and Coupon-mad's subsequent advice would be much appreciated. I need to submit a Defence by Monday at the latest.

Please comment on posts #30 #31 #32 and #33.

Many thanks!

KeithP

JungTheForeman wrote: »

I need to submit a Defence by Monday at the latest.

That's right. You do.

But you have known that deadline for over three weeks and your first draft appeared yesterday evening.

Coupon-mad

JungTheForeman wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-mad. Could you explain why you very strongly recommend this?

Because your case is mainly that any permit requirement was new, not properly advertised and in any case, void for impossibility, because:

They had recently taken over the management of the car park and had not yet issued 'new' valid permits prior to the date of the alleged contravention.

Do you think it's best for me to drag a number of friends and colleagues (all NHS nurses) down to Court on a particular date in order to stand as witnesses?

No, just be an honest witness yourself - a member of NHS staff who has been dragged away from your patients and forced to court, by scumbags.

Out of interest, what is your issue in fighting a claim on a technicality?

If you mean 'no keeper liability' then my view is, only to do that when it's a case where there is no strong main defence (yours is strong) and only where you are sure the NTK was non-POFA.

Britannia ones used to be non-POFA for years, but changed about 18 months ago to POFA wording so I can't be sure your NTK was non POFA. If the Judge is satisfied it's capable of holding a keeper liable you will struggle at a hearing to voice the real issue if pretending not to be the driver, and a stickler for a Judge might be against you for trying that, as it can come across as dishonest.

Even if you defend as driver with the above facts as your main defence (see PACE v Lengyel in the Parking Prankster's case law pages, for the 'permit scheme void for impossibility' argument) you can still add that:

Even in cases where the POFA is not being relied upon, the pre-requisites of that statute are a useful test for the validity of parking charges on private land; namely that there was a lack of:

- relevant contract
- relevant obligation
- adequate notice of the sum of the parking charge.

AND that the Beavis case is fully distinguished due to a lack of legitimate interest and commercial justification in penalising working Doctors, nurses and other staff for not displaying a permit (or not making a payment, which is a farcical allegation as staff surely didn't have to pay?) due to Britannia's own inaction in not supplying permits in a timely manner.

JungTheForeman

KeithP wrote: »

That's right. You do.

But you have known that deadline for over three weeks and your first draft appeared yesterday evening.

I'm in the process of moving house, completing tomorrow. It's been a very stressful time.

JungTheForeman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Because your case is mainly that any permit requirement was new, not properly advertised and in any case, void for impossibility, because:



No, just be an honest witness yourself - a member of NHS staff who has been dragged away from your patients and forced to court, by scumbags.

If you mean 'no keeper liability' then my view is, only to do that when it's a case where there is no strong main defence (yours is strong) and only where you are sure the NTK was non-POFA.

Britannia ones used to be non-POFA for years, but changed about 18 months ago to POFA wording so I can't be sure your NTK was non POFA. If the Judge is satisfied it's capable of holding a keeper liable you will struggle at a hearing to voice the real issue if pretending not to be the driver, and a stickler for a Judge might be against you for trying that, as it can come across as dishonest.

Even if you defend as driver with the above facts as your main defence (see PACE v Lengyel in the Parking Prankster's case law pages, for the 'permit scheme void for impossibility' argument) you can still add that:

Even in cases where the POFA is not being relied upon, the pre-requisites of that statute are a useful test for the validity of parking charges on private land; namely that there was a lack of:

- relevant contract
- relevant obligation
- adequate notice of the sum of the parking charge.

AND that the Beavis case is fully distinguished due to a lack of legitimate interest and commercial justification in penalising working Doctors, nurses and other staff for not displaying a permit (or not making a payment, which is a farcical allegation as staff surely didn't have to pay?) due to Britannia's own inaction in not supplying permits in a timely manner.

Thanks for your time and advice, Coupon-mad. It's very much appreciated.

MistyZ

You already have the best possible advice on how to fight this at the court stage. Go for it, I know the experienced regulars will support you all the way.

But I am still trying to close my jaw ..... I see this as an even scammier scam than those aimed at motorists who 'commit' some minor infringement or are caught out by minuscule T&Cs, lousy lighting etc. From what you say there was no infringement whatsoever and therefore this situation is akin to Britannia scamming me when my car was parked in my own driveway.

Does some kind of paralysis overcome people when they're in the workplace? Actually, in my experience, yes it does. Had something similar happened in a residential street I bet all the victims would be up in arms.

Are there any colleagues who have not yet paid? If so, draft a letter of complaint to the hospital board and ask those colleagues if they'd like to sign it with you. You have expressed yourself strongly and convincingly here so why not give it a go?

Scamming NHS staff without the slightest pretext? My god. How low can these low-life get.

MistyZ

Also .... I wouldn't mind betting the hospital are implicated, for example it may have been down to them to physically distribute the valid permits or some such thing. I can see it now .... the 'Ooops!' moment, followed by tacit agreement to keep schtum.
If indeed there was a delay in issuing valid permits, regardless of who was responsible, then that needs to be central in a complaint. And it's not just a complaint, what is required is a polite, firm, utterly reasonable insistence on cancellation.