Northampton county court business center

KeithP

Do you understand that the keeper has more protection in law than the driver?

You might want to reconsider your opening sentence.

If you leave that sentence as it is, then para 5 has no relevance.

The counter-argument to your para 2 would be that if the driver had no other means of paying then he/she should have left the car park and parked somewhere else.

Jkil

KeithP wrote: »

Do you understand that the keeper has more protection in law than the driver?

You might want to reconsider your opening sentence.

If you leave that sentence as it is, then para 5 has no relevance.

The counter-argument to your para 2 would be that if the driver had no other means of paying then he/she should have left the car park and parked somewhere else.

honestly, no I don't understand I literally read a few different templates and stole bits from each and I do realise that but that is my only argument that's why I stated at the top of the page should I just pay it? there is multiple different places to park in that area but it was super busy there was cars parked all over double yellows so I had no choice but to park there or go home of course but again me not been able to find an alternative space isn't the claimants problem.

KeithP

I suggest you read parts of post #1 in the NEWBIES thread to better understand keeper liability.


You also need to edit your posts here to avoid giving clues to the driver's identity.

For example it was the driver who parked the vehicle, but it was the keeper who received the NtK through the post.

There really is no place for the word 'I' when describing events on the day.

Coupon-mad

but that is my only argument

No, it's not.

#2 is good. That's a decent defence point in itself, but not the only one.

Delete #4, you do not have a (Police) Fixed penalty notice.

Why have you removed bargepole's points about the signs being crap? THIS IS VITAL to all cases, you MUST mention the signs as that's what they are relying on.

Why didn't you add this that I told you to get from other example defences?

And a point about no landowner authority as seen in other defences.

I know you want to rush this but DON'T. Take the whole weekend.

Fruitcake

Edit post 11 NEW to remove information about who was driving at the time of the alleged event. The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not.

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx xxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

Note the words I have removed after "the keeper".

2. The facts of the matter are that the Driver made reasonable efforts to pay for parking using the only pay and display machine provided which was out of order at the time and held no other means to pay. The Defendant has photographic evidence of the machine displaying ‘not in use’.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms due to there been a frustration of contract, given there was no means for the Defendant to pay in this circumstance.

4. Omit and renumber the rest.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

6. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

You need an inadequate signage point.

You should also add in a point about the NTK being non PoFA compliant, if that is actually the case.

Also add that the scammers are not the landowners and you demand them to show strict proof they have standing to issue charges and issue court proceedings. You state you do not believe they have a contract to do so.

Jkil

thanks guys.

i now understand the point about the driver and keeper of the vehicle however when i appealed the windscreen ticket i admited i was the driver and the registered keeper does this matter ??

over the weekend i made the adjustments reccomended.

the only point im unsure in is the one about the NTK been POFA complaint. ive tryed to read into it but again ill be honest it confused hell out of me.


ill post my new edited version for you guys to have a review of.

thanks again

Jkil

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx xxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the driver made reasonable efforts to pay for parking using the only pay and display machine provided which was out of order at the time and held no other means to pay. The Defendant has photographic evidence of the machine displaying ‘not in use’.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms due to there been a frustration of contract, given there was no means for the driver to pay in this circumstance.

4. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', following on from that there is no visible clear marked bays in the entire car park.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Redx

Jkil wrote: »

thanks guys.
i now understand the point about the driver and keeper of the vehicle however when i appealed the windscreen ticket i admited i was the driver and the registered keeper does this matter ??

over the weekend i made the adjustments reccomended.

the only point im unsure in is the one about the NTK been POFA complaint. ive tryed to read into it but again ill be honest it confused hell out of me.

yes it DOES matter

if a person has been foolish and blabbed about who was driving , then the RK side and POFA are no longer relevant

POFA can help protect a keeper , but a driver has no protection whatsoever, so a driver defence has no mention of POFA or keeper liability, because the driver has been outed and must defend as a driver , but the maximum charge of £100 can be kept in, as its a guideline and benchmark

Jkil

I panicked at the time and believed i had done no wrong so didn't think it would have been an issue giving my details however knowing what i know now i realise this was a big mistake.

should i re edit my opening paragraph to say keeper and driver as it did originally? and change back defendant instead of driver?

should i delete para 8 completely now? and do i need to change anything else now you know i have admitted been the driver already?

are there any further recomendations to strengthen my defence or is it adequate considering my position?


thanks

Redx

1) yes , add that extra in , keeper and driver

8) no , do not delete it , as I said its a guideline for the maximum charge

I do not give recommendations for a defence, especially not legal arguments , just common sense where necessary

this forum is not a legal aid forum, its a consumer rights forum, so any legal "advice" you may get is mainly from unqualified do gooders , so do not get your hopes up, but bear in mind that sometimes a legal eagle or experienced person may help in their off duty time


if this was a criminal case , you would be advised of your right to remain silent (and anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law)


bear that in mind for all possible court cases in future , that blabbing costs money