Potential court costs

ktvillan

Thanks.  I understood that I don't have to deny I was the driver, and can;t, but that I am under no obligation to tell them who the driver was, and they have to prove it.  Is that correct?  If not then I'm not sure I have any kind of defence against this since POFA does not apply.

Redx

you are correct, but if asked in court any refusal is really taken as an admission that you are the driver, even if you say "no comment"

other than that , any and all defences contain the usual arguments about no landowner authority , signage , POFA if relevant , the relevant CoP , the CRA 2015 etc

ktvillan

Sorry what is CoP?  I can;t see it in the list of common acronyms in the newbie thread.
POFA dosn't apply as it's land under bye-laws, signage may be an option as it wasn't very clear, and I'm not sure which part of the CRA  would apply.  So I'm beginning to think I have, at best, a fairly weak defence based either on not being the driver or misleading signage.  Bit of a concern. 

nosferatu1001

Code of practice
POFA does apply, the keeper liabilituy provisions DONT. POFA does MORE than keeper liability, it bans clamping nad towing.
You know which part of the CRA applies, as its been written for you. 
Stop being defeatist. 

Le_Kirk

ktvillan said:

Sorry what is CoP?  I can;t see it in the list of common acronyms in the newbie thread.
POFA dosn't apply as it's land under bye-laws, signage may be an option as it wasn't very clear, and I'm not sure which part of the CRA  would apply.  So I'm beginning to think I have, at best, a fairly weak defence based either on not being the driver or misleading signage.  Bit of a concern. 

CoP = Code of Practice
If it is bye-laws and you have not named the driver, then just play ping-pong with letters and e-mails and it times out after six months.

ktvillan

Thanks again for the helpful responses - OK I've obviously misread somewhere as I though I had read POFA did not apply at all to land under bye-laws.  
Nosferatu1001- Not sure what you mean about the CRA, do you mean it's been written for people like me or that someone has written something in this forum to explain which parts are relevant?
Le_Kirk - this charge dates back to February 2019, therefore ongoing letter ping pong for 12 months now.  On your advice that means they've timed out  which would be excellent news.

Redx

I doubt you have misread , just misunderstood the meaning

POFA can be used to hold a keeper liable for the actions of a driver , on relevant land

Ergo , they cannot use POFA to do so on non relevant land , meaning that a keeper cannot be liable due to POFA not applying on railway , port and airport land

So POFA applies because it states it's only applying to relevant land , ergo not on non relevant land , so it's a Counter argument

So if they cannot use POFA against a keeper , then what can they use ? Nothing is the answer , so your argument uses POFA as something that protects you as keeper due to not applying on this land so you have no keeper liability

The CRA applies to everyone in the UK as a consumer , as you say some parts are relevant to people with private parking tissues which are contracts , those parts are highlighted by coupon mad in the thread by CEC16 where she beat a barrister , plus her paragraphs in the abuse of process thread by beamerguy

They can still issue a court case using MCOL within 6 years , and probably will , so a civil court claim , whereas if bylaws apply then the time limit was 6 months at magistrates court , not civil court

You can either contest jurisdiction and pay £100 , or contest it due to bylaws and hope a civil court judge accepts your defence as not subject to contract law

You need to read more on here , to understand the replies

ktvillan

Thanks RedX.  I've gone back through the thread and there are a few posts* that maybe explain my confusion over whether the POFA applies, and whether the 6 month time out applies (apparently it doesn't for parking charge notices, only penalty charge notices).    From the below and other guidance provided I concluded, I think not unreasonably,  that POFA did not apply at all.   I also concluded that the 6 months time-out does not apply as it's not a penalty charge.  This is not to be critical of the avice provided, as it's always welcome and appreciated, it's just to point out that as a layman it's not always easy to follow legal arguments.

Since  POFA (except for the keeper liability) does apply, I need to find some provision from it, apart from the 6 month time out, that will serve as a defence.  Not sure where to go from here...

* One from yourself on page 3 says: “POFA does not apply to land with bylaws , so the POFA paragraphs do not apply , it's the 6 months that applies”

Further down CouponMad says this:“When the PCN was a parking charge notice, the 6 months is not applicable, even if issued on byelaws land. That only relates to PENALTY charge notices.”

One from Waamo on page 4:

“Byelaws are very relevant as POFA does not apply on land covered by byelaws.”

CouponMad again on page 4

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

Redx

that is why I gave you your counter arguments , as did those quotes above

that because POFA does not cover non relevant land , then there is no keeper liability , so the relevant paragraphs are what it does cover, and what it does NOT cover , so the fact that it does not cover non relevant land like this port or harbour (anywhere bylaws apply , as do penalty notices - which is what you initially called it) means it cannot be used to invoke keeper liability

it is more the case that the simpler rule applies

POFA does not apply on land protected by bylaws , ergo a keeper cannot be held as liable due to the fact that the law of POFA does not apply - ergo how can I as keeper of the vehicle be deemed liable when POFA cannot make this apply ? , maybe if you kept it simple as I jusat did and previously did it would gel better ?

alternatively, the thought should be this

a driver parked on land covered by bylaws, therefore the landowner should take that DRIVER to magistrates court , within 6 months , using the bylaws and penalty notice to try for a conviction in front of a magistrate

have they done this ? NO , definitely not

has it timed out for a magistrates court to hear a bylaw penalty ? - yes it has

is there keeper liability on non relevant land in POFA ? - no , only on relevant land

we understand its complicated , yet there are plenty of airport court cases on here where we have used the same arguments, its up to the civil courts to decide on the matter

read the UKPPO thread by Bountyhunter where over twenty people disputed the court claims , one paid £100 and contested jurisdiction , the rest fought on contract law etc, and on POFA not applying to them as keepers , no landowner authority , poor signage etc

that is your best source at the moment, even though its Newcastle airport and not a port

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5971217/newcastle-airport-ukppo-bw-legal-collective-defence-group/p1

ktvillan

Thanks again - so to summarise, because it's Bye-Law land, no liability as keeper, and liability as driver should have been pursued via a penalty charge notice via magistrates court within 6 months, not the parking charge notice route in County Court.  Is that broadly correct?