Potential court costs

Redx

I did tell you to read and digest the UKPPO thread , by Bountyhunter , because all scenarios came up and different defendants used different aspects of those issues in defending their cases

At least one argued the penalty and bylaws to challenge jurisdiction under civil law and to try the contesting jurisdiction argument

The rest used POFA and contractual laws and timescales to argue their cases under contractual law and not contesting jurisdiction , partly because POFA doesn't apply on non relevant land like airports (and ports and railway land) , so as keeper they had no contractual liability

Yes it's complicated , but don't shoot the messenger

How you decide to fight it is deciding which grounds to use , which is what over 20 people did in that group

A PPC will use a Mish mash of both arguments , but usually try to assert contractual law , not bylaws and not penalties , but even where POFA doesn't apply , it's arguments can be used as a defence

Here is another Mish mash with explanations , at Southend airport

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6081927/letter-before-claim-vcs-southend-airport

I never said that a non POFA case does apply under civil court jurisdiction

Waamo was correct in what he said

Bylaws penalty notices come under magistrates court and POFA does not apply so neither does keeper liability

Contractual notices come under civil court , be they POFA or non POFA , so both are tried in civil court

Coupon-mad

ktvillan wrote: »

Mine is a parking charge not a penalty charge but the land is governed by bye-laws. I've read through quite a lot of threads but there's so much info that I'm still a bit confused as to what my best approach is.

I'm concluding from your post #26 coupon-mad that because it's a parking charge notice the bye-laws are not relevant at all to my case - is that correct?

INCORRECT - that was not said.

I was telling you that the PCN was not issued under byelaws and was NOT timed out after 6 months, because it was not pretending to be a penalty charge.

Or are bye-laws relevant in the sense it makes it a non POFA situation?

Yes.

'Keeper liability' cannot apply because the POFA does not apply on 'non-relevant land'.

And if so is my best approach to challenge on the basis that non-POFA notices do not fall under county court jurisdiction?

I wouldn't. Costs you £100 in a fee to contest jurisdiction and you'd then have to sue for it back, if the Judge didn't order it paid by the other side. AND the Judge might not agree with you when they see it is not a penalty charge.

Redx

As above

Perhaps you have confused yourself and others in this thread because you have used both Penalty and Parking to describe the PCN , it cannot be both

Cel do not issue penalty notices under bylaws , they issue contractual parking charge notices , to keepers under civil laws , on land where keepers have no liability because POFA does not apply in this case due to it being a port where bylaws apply

We have strayed a long way fro your potential costs question which is what this thread was about

ktvillan

Perhaps you have confused yourself and others in this thread because you have used both Penalty and Parking to describe the PCN , it cannot be both

I've re-read the thread and can only see that I've always referred to it as a parking charge notice as far as I can see, so I'm not sure how I'm confusing either myself or others on that point. Perhaps it is that anything issued under bye-laws must be a penalty charge rather than a Parking charge? I don't know, like I said I'm just a simple laymen and I don't know these things and picking out such nuggets from a plethora of information, albeit welcome, is not that easy.

We have strayed a long way fro your potential costs question which is what this thread was about

Well yes but that's how the conversation has developed from the mostly extremely helpful comments of contributors including your good self, and my subsequent request for clarification. Sorry if that'snot how the forum is supposed to work, but I hadn't realised that you guys knew so much that could be of use before I posted. I am extremely grateful for the advice, and it is most likely my lack of knowledge, but it's just that some of it seems to be adding to the fog rather than helping to clear it.

I will just get an SAR and then see what they do from there.

waamo

Although byelaws are in place they have not issued a byelaws ticket. This is a contractual agreement not a breach of byelaws. It is a civil matter.

What is important is that POFA does not apply on land where there are byelaws. Whilst this is a civil ticket it is one that they cannot claim keeper liability on.

It's as simple as that really.

Redx

ktvillan wrote: »

Sorry for new thread but the only previous one I found appears to be closed. I have a Parking Charge Notice dispute that will be taken to court shortly. I'm ok with that as long as the court costs are not excessive if I lose. I wanted to know if this will go to the small claims court, and costs will be capped, or if it would go to actual County Court and costs could potentially be much higher. In each case could anyone advise what the potential costs could or would be?

FYI the original

penalty

was £100 (£56 if paid in 14 days) and they've added on charges making it £182.
I am disputing the claim on the basis of unclear signage. I had a Letter Before Action which I responded to by repeating my original offer to pay £20, which I deemed fair, but it was again rejected.

Any guidance greatly appreciated.

Post #1 stated penalty , as well as parking , indicating that a penalty notice was issued (under bylaws)

Waamo has summed it up in a nutshell , in simple terms

It's not our fault it's so complicated due to the two factions involved of bylaws with penalties versus civil contractual invoices, you ask , we deliver

I could ask a dreamliner pilot how he flies the aircraft , the reply may dumbfound me , but in simple terms he presses a few buttons , moves a stick with his hands and operates pedals with his feet , not much different than a Sinclair C5 , lol

Happy New Year

ktvillan

Thank you all.

ktvillan

Update on this - I received SAR data and there is no photographic evidence of me being the driver, and I have not admitted as such in any of my letters to the parking company.   However my initial appeal of the charge was done on their website appeal portal and the appeal form has my status as "Driver".  I don;t recall specifying such so I went back in to check.  The appeal system takes you to a form entitled "driver details".  There is no option to change this if you want to continue with the appeal, which seems to me be a form of sharp practice or even "entrapment" on their  part.    
Can anyone advise if they think this is likely to be sufficient for them to claim against me as the driver rather than the keeper  (the keeper liability should not apply because the land is under bye-laws).
Any advice appreciated.  

Assuming this is not sufficient for them to prove I'm the driver is it wise to tell them that I deny being the driver, and that my intended defence is that POFA does not apply and they can't charge me as the keeper? Or should I wait until it goes to court?

ktvillan

Just bumping this in the hope someone might advise me before I write back to the PCN.   Summary:
The land is governed by bye-laws.  I therefore understand POFA does not apply and that they may not pursue me as the registered keeper.
The SAR does not seem to include a Notice to Keeper (I assume this would be clearly headed as such?)
SAR Photos provided do not have entry and exit timestamps and do not show who is driving, 
SAR does not include a full breakdown or explanation of additional charges added on
SAR docs do show appeals I submitted via their portal whihc have my staus as "Driver", but I did not actively specify this.
Landowners Falmouth Harbour Commission can't or won't get charge cancelled - they agreed with PCN I could pay the original £56 but I declined.

I was intending to write back to confirm the points about the SAR documents and dney that I admitted to being the driver - is this unwise?
From extensive reading of the various threads, I understand that because POFA does not apply that there may be no keeper liability and the PCN should be seeking driver liability.  I also understand that, because POFA does not apply, the "abuse of process" argument re the added costs would not apply either. Thus my defence should be based around not being the driver.  I would really appreciate it if one the resident wise men far more knowledgeable than me would care to correct me if my understanding is not quite right?

nosferatu1001

If yo uwere the driver, you cannot deny being the driver. 
What you can point out is that no actual admission was made as to the drivers identity; tha tin order to appeal your name was completed in this field as you had no choice. 
No, it might not be called NtK. It would just be ANY postal notice, because by definition they can ONLY get a postal address of the keeper!" Think about it!