Updated - Parking court defence

KeithP

Pretty much all of your para 3 should be in your Witness Statement.

UrbanBadger

Can I clarify a couple of queries? My understanding is that I need to list in my defence any points I rely on in my witness statement, are you saying that I can reduce paragraph 3 to be much briefer e.g. operator not compliant with CoP, site lacked adequate signage, breach of ICO CoP?
Can I also clarify if I should admit to driving or if it is better to defend as keeper whilst not lying about who was driving? The former approach would make the witness statement/hearing easier but would this take away the POFA defence?

Coupon-mad

are you saying that I can reduce paragraph 3 to be much briefer e.g. operator not compliant with CoP, site lacked adequate signage, breach of ICO CoP?

Yes, we are.

Can I also clarify if I should admit to driving or if it is better to defend as keeper whilst not lying about who was driving? The former approach would make the witness statement/hearing easier but would this take away the POFA defence?

Yes and yes - so make you mind up now whether your strongest suit is to defend as driver (it often is the best approach when the defence is strong, such as where the signs are pants).

UrbanBadger

Hi, thanks for your replies. I have adjusted my text, but probably failed to make it briefer! I have settled on my approach to the defence as I am confident the NtK is POFA compliant so there isn't any wriggle room there. I have therefore tried to provide some context for the judge within point 2 and then some specific additional short points within 3. 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. Upon arrival at the car park from a northerly direction at no point did the Defendant see any signage indicating that the site in question was subject to private parking terms and conditions restricting parking. Indeed, the signage that was observed on approach to the car park indicated to the defendant that the car park was likely to be a controlled by the local authority. This is likely to be due to the Claimant not operating in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to signage at the entrance to the car park. The car park was very busy on arrival with no parking spaces available. Therefore, it was not possible to park for some time which was greater that the grace period recommended by the BPA Code of Practice. The Claimant is required to provide evidence that they manage the car park to prevent over-occupancy from occurring should they wish to claim for the duration based on entry and exit data and have made allowance for this within their claim.

 

3.       It is also important to state that is it not made apparent that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is in use, nor that enforcement is based on ANPR data. For example by way of a barrier and sign to halt traffic whilst capturing the vehicle details and warn the motorist what the data will be used for. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the use of ANPR and vehicle entry/exit images are in compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and data protection legislation namely the Information Commissioners Office Code of Practice’ applicable to ANPR. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not in compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Nor does the NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements by demonstrating the period parked.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Redx

The last sentence does not make sense

UrbanBadger

Thanks, I see what you mean. How about:
Nor does the NtK meet PoFA2012 requirements by specifying the period of parking to which the notice relates.

KeithP

UrbanBadger said:

Thanks, I see what you mean. How about:
Nor does the NtK meet PoFA2012 requirements by specifying the period of parking to which the notice relates.

Or how about...

Nor does the NtK meet PoFA2012 requirements as it fails to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.

1505grandad

A couple of pedantic observations:-

Para 2  -  " Indeed, the signage that was observed on approach to the car park indicated to the defendant that the car park was likely to be (a) controlled by the local authority."

remove the (a) 

" Therefore, it was not possible to park for some time which was greater (that) the grace period recommended by the BPA Code of Practice."

(than)

UrbanBadger

Hi, thanks for your help. Do you think, incorporating the above suggestions this is OK to submit? Do I need to include Appendix A, B and C still? Thanks again!

KeithP

Appendix A, B and C??

Are they mentioned in your Defence?
It is not usual to add anything to a Defence, even more so if the attached stuff is not referenced.