Last minute defense for unfair PCN

Vickioli

Yes i did file the acknowledgement in a timely manner.



I've just got back from work so I'm going to continue piecing together my defense then post it here for you to critique, if that's OK. I'm really out of my depth with the legal wording so any help with that would be great please.



Good to know I have another day!

Umkomaas

defense

Try getting the spelling correct. Defence.

Vickioli

This is my first draft. Not sure how I'm going to fit in the bit about the clocks on each device not being in sync? Not found any threads yet regarding this issue. Can anyone point me in the right direction please...?





IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2.The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.
The failures are:
Failing to deliver the NTK within 14 days, 9 (4).
Failing to give notice of keeper liability, 9 (2) (f)
Failing to give the required statement at 9 (2) (b)
Failing to give period of parking, 9 (2) (a).

2(i) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

2(ii) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Crawley Boulevard East, Crawley, RH10 1XP.

3.1. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parked without payment' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty), not least because it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid. Overpaid in fact!

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'motorist parked without payment' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'Parking Without Pyment'. Moving in front of a camera cannot be parking.

3. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed to pay anything more than the advertised tariff;
b. There was any agreement to pay a further penalty parking charge;
C. There was any agreement to pay additional costs.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Vickioli

Umkomaas wrote: »

Try getting the spelling correct. Defence.

Sorry, my laptop keeps auto correcting it from Defence to Defense.



It's very frustrating for me too...

KeithP

In the first para 2 - The Protection of Freedoms Act should be spelt out in full before resorting to POFA 2012.

In para 2 - that's the second para 2, the one that comes after para 3.1 - surely the second sentence therein should mention the driver, not the registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

Good start - there is a typo in #2 though - but you need the rest! Like this example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76639260#Comment_76639260

KeithP

Vickioli wrote: »

Sorry, my laptop keeps auto correcting it from Defence to Defense.

It's very frustrating for me too...

Then change your spell checker from US English to UK English.

Umkomaas

Vickioli wrote: »

Sorry, my laptop keeps auto correcting it from Defence to Defense.



It's very frustrating for me too...

Knock off the English (US) and change to English (UK), it should be situated in the bottom toolbar of your MS Word document. If not do a Google search on how to change the default spell checker/auto correct function.

Vickioli

Thanks, I've changed to English UK now!



Here's my second draft. Am I repeating myself with the Registered Keeper bit and have I got it all round the right way?


Also, I've corrected the numbering mistakes...



IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.
The failures are:
Failing to deliver the NTK within 14 days, 9 (4).
Failing to give notice of keeper liability, 9 (2) (f)
Failing to give the required statement at 9 (2) (b)
Failing to give period of parking, 9 (2) (a).

2(i) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. However, the defendant was not the driver on the occasion mentioned in the Particulars of Claim, and has no lawful obligation under any applicable law to name the driver. 'Keeper liability' where the keeper was not the driver on private land, is not an automatic right. It is dependent upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

2(ii) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.


3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Crawley Boulevard East, Crawley, RH10 1XP.

3.1. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parked without payment' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty), not least because it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid.

4. The allegation appears to be that the ‘motorist parked without payment' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the Driver 'parking without payment'. Moving in front of a camera cannot be parking.

5. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed to pay anything more than the advertised tariff;
b. There was any agreement to pay a further penalty parking charge;
C. There was any agreement to pay additional costs.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

No, when I said you need the rest...I meant like the one I wrote and linked.