Varley Park University of Brighton - County Court Claim

Redx

I do not have legal training to check defences so decline those offers and requests, apart from making suggestions about obvious errors and spelling mistakes which are sheer common sense and due diligence

I would have thought that you have already told us the ISSUE DATE and that KeithP gave you chapter and verse on submissions by email as a pdf attachment ? including deadline dates ? he usually does and I would not contradict his advice at all ( see post #11 on page one)

my advice has been based on over 6 years experience on here advising about private PARKING TICKETS like yours, not court issues as this is not a legal aid forum, its a consumer rights forum and it should never have got this far , hence why you and I are backpedalling

POFA is the law that can or could make you as Registered Keeper liable, it was enacted from october 2012 , so over 7 years ago

POFA is the only way they can extort money from you as RK, if OPS complied with POFA

it would help if you complained to the BPA with copies of those SAR ntk documents etc , a brief timeline of when they are all issued and what each one was (windscreen NTD , postal NTK 31 days later etc), plus attach the pdf to the complaint so they can see them and they can check the breach of clause #19 etc (they should have given you as keeper the opportunity to name the driver too)

it would help your defence if they have failed POFA and breached the BPA CoP too, hence my replies today to you, to get your ducks in a row

rattling the cage may make them think twice and maybe back down , you never know

your defence should at least contain no landowner authority , poor and inadequate signage causing the pcns to be issued , BPA CoP failures , POFA 2012 failures , the CRA 2015 , abuse of process etc


a judge could take a dim view of you not appealing to OPS and then not appealing to POPLA , court is the last resort

basher52

Redx wrote: »

I do not have legal training to check defences so decline those offers and requests, apart from making suggestions about obvious errors and spelling mistakes which are sheer common sense and due diligence

I would have thought that you have already told us the ISSUE DATE and that KeithP gave you chapter and verse on submissions by email as a pdf attachment ? including deadline dates ? he usually does and I would not contradict his advice at all ( see post #11 on page one)

my advice has been based on over 6 years experience on here advising about private PARKING TICKETS like yours, not court issues as this is not a legal aid forum, its a consumer rights forum and it should never have got this far , hence why you and I are backpedalling

POFA is the law that can or could make you as Registered Keeper liable, it was enacted from october 2012 , so over 7 years ago

POFA is the only way they can extort money from you as RK, if OPS complied with POFA

it would help if you complained to the BPA with copies of those SAR ntk documents etc , a brief timeline of when they are all issued and what each one was (windscreen NTD , postal NTK 31 days later etc), plus attach the pdf to the complaint so they can see them and they can check the breach of clause #19 etc (they should have given you as keeper the opportunity to name the driver too)

it would help your defence if they have failed POFA and breached the BPA CoP too, hence my replies today to you, to get your ducks in a row

rattling the cage may make them think twice and maybe back down , you never know

your defence should at least contain no landowner authority , poor and inadequate signage causing the pcns to be issued , BPA CoP failures , POFA 2012 failures , the CRA 2015 , abuse of process etc


a judge could take a dim view of you not appealing to OPS and then not appealing to POPLA , court is the last resort

I guess the truth about my particular claim is that it was easy or easier to read that these invoices are a way to extract money from people that pay up rather than challenge the opportunists and that it would not get to the point where I would have to defend myself in a court of law. I feel that every claim is rejected anyway and there were examples where people were encouraged not to appeal at all. It does seem that these claimants should be taken to court for just existing. Yet that they are making serious amounts of money. The NTK does offer the opportunity to name the driver but not pay the reduced amount. So far the comments rec'd have been incorporated into my defence statement. I will review Newbies for POFA 2012 failure. Thank you

Redx

when you have time watch the Parliamentary debates about parking companies and their dubious practices , ask yourself why the Parking Bill by Sir Greg Knight had no objections and sailed through the Commons and the Lords

ask your newly appointed MP in wrting by email what the delay is, royal assent was given almost 10 months ago , yet the Brex*t bill is being debated in January 2020 and given royal assent at the end of January and is implemented within 11 months !!!

your legal defence should state you are the RK and not the driver , whereas point 2) only mentions being the authorised RK, it says nothing about not being the driver

it should set out your legal points as to why you as RK are NOT liable for any of the pcn,s , especially if they failed POFA in timescales or wording

the 31 days timescal is POFA compliant , because the NTK has to arrive between day 29 and day 56 following an incident , so as they could not get keeper details until the 29th day and you received it on day 31 , it complies on the timescale, but may not comply with wordings etc, hence why you check the NTK against POFA for full compliance

if they complied, you will have to win on a technicality , like no landowner authority etc , a BPA sanction against OPS would help your case

KeithP

basher52 wrote: »

IMy deadline is 31st and we have Christmas next week. Is email submission ok?

As Redx has said, you already know the answer to that question.

Please re-read post #11 above.

basher52

KeithP wrote: »

As Redx has said, you already know the answer to that question.

Please re-read post #11 above.

I will email PDF signed. Just that I read bargepole saying send registered.

Thank you

basher52

Redx wrote: »

when you have time watch the Parliamentary debates about parking companies and their dubious practices , ask yourself why the Parking Bill by Sir Greg Knight had no objections and sailed through the Commons and the Lords

ask your newly appointed MP in wrting by email what the delay is, royal assent was given almost 10 months ago , yet the Brex*t bill is being debated in January 2020 and given royal assent at the end of January and is implemented within 11 months !!!

your legal defence should state you are the RK and not the driver , whereas point 2) only mentions being the authorised RK, it says nothing about not being the driver

it should set out your legal points as to why you as RK are NOT liable for any of the pcn,s , especially if they failed POFA in timescales or wording

the 31 days timescal is POFA compliant , because the NTK has to arrive between day 29 and day 56 following an incident , so as they could not get keeper details until the 29th day and you received it on day 31 , it complies on the timescale, but may not comply with wordings etc, hence why you check the NTK against POFA for full compliance

if they complied, you will have to win on a technicality , like no landowner authority etc , a BPA sanction against OPS would help your case

Have checked PoFA 2012 section 9g and this is not on the letter. Interesting that in the next page, information it says that if there is an appeal, no discount is possible.

Redx

basher52 wrote: »

Have checked PoFA 2012 section 9g and this is not on the letter. Interesting that in the next page, information it says that if there is an appeal, no discount is possible.

They all say that , the discount is for early payment , not for appealing

Hopefully the NTK fails POFA on wording in which case you should win due to not being the driver , if you make it clear on that line and paragraph I told you about

Ensure that the defence includes this POFA issue and that you believe that the paperwork cannot hold you as defendant liable (putting the claimant to strict proof of the contrary)

As for what bargepole said , check out the date he posted it , at that time they would not accept email attachments , but that has changed since he posted it in order to move with the times , things change , but his post is still correct if email is not used

KeithP posts up to date instructions for those who want to safely email their defence and DQ instead of posting it , the email option has been used thousands of times already , it's quicker , safer , doesn't get lost , cheaper , provides an electronic record and doesn't rely on the post , especially not as it's Xmas

I know which I would choose

Le_Kirk

basher52 wrote: »

I will email PDF signed. Just that I read bargepole saying send registered.

Thank you

That is old information based on the fact that, when it was written, CCBC did not allow submission by e-mail, they've only just got the electric in Northampton! E-mail is fine.

basher52

Redx wrote: »

They all say that , the discount is for early payment , not for appealing

Hopefully the NTK fails POFA on wording in which case you should win due to not being the driver , if you make it clear on that line and paragraph I told you about

Ensure that the defence includes this POFA issue and that you believe that the paperwork cannot hold you as defendant liable (putting the claimant to strict proof of the contrary)

As for what bargepole said , check out the date he posted it , at that time they would not accept email attachments , but that has changed since he posted it in order to move with the times , things change , but his post is still correct if email is not used

KeithP posts up to date instructions for those who want to safely email their defence and DQ instead of posting it , the email option has been used thousands of times already , it's quicker , safer , doesn't get lost , cheaper , provides an electronic record and doesn't rely on the post , especially not as it's Xmas

I know which I would choose

I prefer email. The discount wording is not there, unless its in code.

Thank you

basher52

Le_Kirk wrote: »

That is old information based on the fact that, when it was written, CCBC did not allow submission by e-mail, they've only just got the electric in Northampton! E-mail is fine.

Thank you. Email is my preferred method anyway