UKPC LBC Residential parking

xscape

Brilliant, thanks I will get to ork on my reply and get the SAR underway!

xscape

So latest reply...
Please find attached an email received from employer redacted on 2 April 2019 nominating you as the driver of the vehicle question. Accordingly, liability was transferred to you as the driver pursuant to Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 2012").



In respect of the other points raised in your email, our response is as follows:-



As the driver of the vehicle, you are liable as the contracting party. As such our client is not relying on the provisions of POFA 2012.


The signage provided in the evidence bundle confirms that the additional charge of £60.00 will be applied if the parking charge notices remain unpaid.


The date/time stamped photographs provided in the evidence bundle demonstrated the overstay.


In light of the above, it is our client's position that the parking charge notices for the total sum were validly issued and remain due and owing.


So they are picking and choosing whether to rely on POFA?

How do attack this?

beamerguy

xscape wrote: »

The signage provided in the evidence bundle confirms that the additional charge of £60.00 will be applied if the parking charge notices remain unpaid.

Can we see a pic of the sign. Is the £60 in tiny T&C's
You upload a scanned copy to a free hosting site like tinypic
and post the URL here as a broken link .. hxxp, and someone will make it live

SCS Law has not yet grasped this ...

ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75930070#Comment_75930070

The_Deep

Please find attached an email received from employer redacted on 2 April 2019 nominating you as the driver

Unless the employer was present at the time, he/she cannot know who was driving.

The signage provided in the evidence bundle confirms that the additional charge of £60.00 will be applied if the parking charge notices remain unpaid.

Does it? Specifically? Can they produce a v.a.t. invoice?. Usually DCAs operate on a no win no fee basis. So it is unlikely that this amount has been exopended and is a false claim.

Have you read Beamish thread on abuse of process? Have you brought this to the attention of your MP?

Coupon-mad

So they are picking and choosing whether to rely on POFA?

No, they believe you were the driver and have some evidence to support that.

Can you truthfully deny it? If not, don't try, unless the email from the old employer doesn't actually name you as 'driver'.

xscape

Well they failed to actually attach it so will reply asking for it.

The argument then boils down to my leasehold agreement, I guess.

xscape

The saga continues.

I am in possession of some SAR data from UKPC and SCS.

UKPC bundle includes no correspondence with SCS, employer (besides original notice to keeper letters) or any third parties.

Should it?

SCS bundle includes some correspondence with employer.

Since the initial letter before court and back and forth with SCS, they have requested a letter from the employer explicitly nominating me as the driver, to fit their assertions. Under duress, the company have of course relented and given them what they asked for.

The company held no such records nor would be able to know who committed the offence.
The person they are in correspondence with was not employed by the company until recently.
Partner was also allowed and insured (by their insurers) to drive, though I may struggle to ask for evidence, I can but try.

I am holding back on arguing primacy of contract (leasehold agreement) because I felt this would be best presented in court? or would it be better my hand shown now?

Reading recent threads it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to court action.

They have given me a week to respond. Or do it sit and wait?

KeithP

xscape wrote: »

I am holding back on arguing primacy of contract (leasehold agreement) because I felt this would be best presented in court? or would it be better my hand shown now?

You cannot present new evidence at a hearing.

Trial by ambush is simply not allowed.

There must be no surprises, from either side, at a hearing.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, you have no option but to disclose your full defence. Failing to do so wil cost you.

Between SCS and the PPC is privileged so of course it will noit be shown
Between PPC and employer - yes, as it was about your VRM.
If you can cast doubt on the nomination - which you can do easily neough it seems - then you state to SCS that you do not accept the empoyers statement, and you require them to attend to be cross examined. It will be easy as you will be able to get them to confirm on record that they hold no records, they were not even employed at the time, etc.

Coupon-mad

Primacy of contract is surely the main defence so of course you can't not mention it, then later ambush with it.

UKPC bundle includes no correspondence with SCS,

Why would it? SCS are their legal advisers and such comms are between the Claimant and their solicitor.