Court Date Advice Please.

Kalbo

Quentin wrote: »

Have you read up and understood POFA?

Yes I have spent hours reading up on that and all the files and links in the newbies section along with any other information and links I could find.

Quentin

OK, so you should see how pofa works!

KeithP

Kalbo wrote: »

it's really semantics as transferring the liability for an alleged contract is still holding a 3rd party liable for a contract they never entered into.

Not semantics.

It's legislation.

This sentence from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Explanatory Notes may help you:

The scheme provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper or the hirer of a vehicle may be made liable for any unpaid parking charge that has arisen as a result of either: the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or another person authorised to require payment of parking charges on the land in question; or, through the driver of the vehicle committing a trespass or other tort on land where parking is prohibited.

Kalbo

Quentin wrote: »

OK, so you should see how pofa works!

Yes I do but has this ever been challenged, I was looking to challenge the assumption I assume responsibility for an alleged contract formed by a 3rd party without my knowledge or consent as it contradicts the conditions of a contract, if the answer is yes and it has failed then fine I fall back on my second and 3rd defence respectively. Contract: a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law. My angle was to dispute the legitimacy of transferring the liability for a contract.

Quentin

If you want to challenge this Act then take it up with your MP!


But a non starter as far as defending a county court claim over an alleged unpaid debt!

Kalbo

Quentin wrote: »

If you want to challenge this Act then take it up with your MP!


But a non starter as far as defending a county court claim over an alleged unpaid debt!

I wasn't planning on challenging the act as the act states may be made liable for any unpaid parking charge not will be so conditions may or could apply beyond the stated conditions bringing this into doubt such as knowledge of an alleged contract or even if it could cover a contract, I believe it to be disputable and my question was has it been challenged.

waamo

They aren't holding you to the contract. They are holding you to not naming the driver. Thats the the legality of it.

The driver forms the contract. The keeper is given the opportunity to name the driver. If the keeper chooses not to name the driver then the keeper becomes liable for any debts run up by the driver.

All this assumes they meet the requirements of POFA.

At this stage it is probably an idea to scrutinise the paperwork and see if they have failed at POFA.

Coupon-mad

Let's see your draft WS and evidence you are about the file & serve this month, then, please. I hope you haven't missed the entire section in the NEWBIES thread about your requirement to provide a WS and evidence (I am not talking about the other WS, the second one, from the resident of the flat, which will of course be one of your exhibits.

Have you also searched this forum for an unusual word from Gladstones WS drivel, such as the surname of a case they mention, to find how many times this tired WS of theirs has already been debunked here?

Nothing is new here, all been seen before and you just need to scratch the surface of the forum with searches to find everything has been seen before, discussed and fully covered. Copy from other threads and show us your WS & evidence like the NEWBIES thread tells you.

Kalbo

Thank you for all the replies, I didn't mention as it was not relevant but will answer the questions on if I had prepared properly and read everything I could, I defended a case in crown court going onto the high court in London 13 years ago which set a president and lasted a total of 6 years so although I have no legal training I do have experience of what is relevant, not relevant, the fact you can't challenge law or legislation but you can challenge the application and question the intention in the minds of the people forming the law or legislation in regards to it's application so I was fully prepared.

I won the case on one of my initial arguments, to summarise this they had shown the location of the alleged signs but not produced any pictures of these signs in situe being as their contract had only been in place 12 weeks I questioned the existence of these signs and on a second point they had produced a print out of a sign not a photograph and this sign did not mention visitors permits which lost them the case as their claim was using it without displaying a visitors permit.

I had several other arguments such as the resident (who attended the hearing) not being issued with a permit at the time or being informed a new 'system' had or was being introduced and this being an obligation they had in order to be able to form a contract, a claim the site had been audited by the IPC yet not evidence of this had been supplied, I am simplifying these arguments but broke down my points on this. The judge as is normal did not consider or need to consider these arguments.

I did of course claim and was granted costs.

Le_Kirk

which set a president

try this, assume it was a spell check error: -

which set a [strike]president[/strike] precedent