BW Legal/3D Parking – Directions Questionnaire stage 29 September 2019 at 7:42PM edited 18 January 2020 at 11:49PM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking 49 replies 1.2K views

BrokenSky

Thank you Coupon-mad, I appreciate the detailed response.

I will do all the suggested reading (especially the Southampton case) and drafting over the next few days and come back with draft narrative and supplementary WS, exhibits and a costs schedule for you to review.

BrokenSky

It has been very busy for me workwise the last few days, so unfortunately I haven't done as much preparation as I would like. I am going to sacrifice this weekend focusing on producing the WS and attending documents, but I know it will be worth it in the end.

If the NTK was not a POFA compliant one in wording or timeline, then you will be saying that you were not driving and that this Claimant cannot hold a registered keeper liable under the applicable law - and then explain why.

They were postal NTKs. I was sent copies these by 3D following my SAR request last year. I've noticed that the reason 3D gave for the alleged contraventions is that "Not parked wholly within the markings of the bay or space". Does this stack up given that the driver had a valid parking permit during the time the alleged contraventions took place? Each of the NTKs has a photo clearly showing the parking permit number on display in the windscreen.

I also question the timing of one of the two NTKs. The first contravention was on xx/08/2018 and the NTK was issued just under a month later on xx/09/2018, but over the 14 day period. (POFA Schedule 4 Para. 9(5). That would contravene POFA would it not, as the registered keeper wasn't driving? To meet this category, how can I tell by looking at the NTK that 3D are seeking 'Keeper Liability' under POFA?

Although it was submitted months ago, would it be worth posting or PMing my Defence, so that it provides some context as I shape my WS and Supplementary WS for your review (once I've drafted)?

nosferatu1001

No permit and not in a bay are utterly different alleged contraventions. What do they claim in the CLAIM FORM itself? Because if they claim no permit, thats the claim you defend and point out that there clearly was a permit there. AND you point out that their NtKs never alleged no permit as the basis for the charge, which is another pofa fail - they cannot allege one thing and go to coutr for another and try to hold the keepe rliable for it.

Yes, of course it would. However was there a notice on the vehicle? Their pics would show this. If there was, then its para 8 youre looking at for timescales, which are 29-56 dyas, not 14.

You can tell by looking because it will state the keeper is responsible if after the period beginning 28 days aftrr the day on which the notice is given....

BrokenSky

The Claim Form says their claim is for:
“…parking contraventions which occurred between xx/xx/2018 and xx/xx/2018 on private land managed and operated by the Claimant, where the Defendant was responsible for a Vehicle, registration mark XXXX XXX, seen breaching terms and conditions in operation at the Car Park/Private Land.
The Defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN issue Date to pay each PCN, but failed to do so.
Despite demand having being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability…..”

In their rejection of my appeal letter they cited “Beavis” as a breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

From the above it looks like they are trying to rely on a breach of their T&Cs?

No, there were no notices on the windscreen. In both cases we received letters from 3D. The first was received 28 days after the alleged contravention, and the second was only 2 days after the alleged contravention. I think when NtKs are sent by post they fall under POFA, Schedule 4, Para 9 and I'm looking at clause 5.

The NtKs don't explicitly say that the keeper is responsible after 28 days. They did give the option to fill in details of the driver if the keeper wasn’t responsible for the contravention. Does that make make the first claim invalid?

Redx

No , but if they failed POFA in timescales , wording or both then a keeper cannot be held to be liable , especially if the keeper was not the driver

Invalid would indicate something completely different , so a bad choice of word

It could be deemed a valid invoice if they had followed POFA , whereas any discrepancies mean the keeper isn't liable and they should invoice the driver and pursue the driver (if known) , meaning they could have a valid claim , against a driver

You are under no obligation to name the driver

My point , if they fail in law against a keeper then the claim should be struck out

nosferatu1001

Nothing makes a claim "invalid". They allege you owe them money from the invoice (NtK) they sent. thats it

Post up the NtKs, rather than us guessing. THERE MUST BE A SECTION STATING THE KEEPER WILL BE LIABLE
if there isnt
they havent given the correct warning AND they are not trying ti invoke POFA; so firstly you state in your defence that they are NOT using POFA, so have no claim, THEN you state that even if they claim now theyre using POFA to hold you liable, they fail beause they didnt meet the following.... of whcih the time period is merely ONE element. You have to work out and list *every* fail.

BrokenSky

Sorry, as I have never done this before. What is the preferred method for uploading a copy of the NTKs? Is there a webhosting site that is best for anonymity? I can't use my personal Dropbox as it has my name. Does MSE have a preferred file format?

Le_Kirk

Just use any image hosting site such as imgur (but not tinypic) and post the URL you are given as hxxps:// if you are not allowed to post it due to not being a member long enough or not having enough posts under your belt.

BrokenSky

Ok, I’ve had an IT colleague help redact the NtKs for me. I’ve also used Imgur for the first time today. This is all a learning experience!

Links to the NtKs are here. Please note that the windscreen ‘evidential image’ is of the employee parking permit number, not a windscreen PCN:

https://imgur.com/a/XrRXWhv
https://imgur.com/a/PqoBk61

Please let me know if they don’t work.
I’ll restate my question from last night in case you missed it: Should I post my Defence so that you have some context?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

The links work and yes post your defence for critique.