Potential court costs

Coupon-mad

Since they've effectively said this is what they intend to rely on in court, does this preclude them from subsequently pursuing me as the driver? 

No, they could try that in court as plan B and ask you outright.  But CEL are more likely to discontinue if they see a decent defence and WS/evidence.  They usually fold, no hearing, after costing you time and money in printing, and they get away with that - but at least you'd win.

Would the POFA provisions re the driver also not apply due to it being non-relevant land? 

There are no POFA provisions re the driver.    It's all about the keeper.  

Surely there are three reasons why they can't hold a keeper liable:

 - it's non-relevant land, and

- their NTKs these days don't bother with POFA wording anyway (depends on the NTK), and

- there is no 'adequate notice' of the parking charge due to dodgy signs.

Read the Guidance to section 56 of the POFA 2012 (Google that).  Some very very useful explanatory stuff to help you and a Judge see that on non-relevant land, a person can't be held liable as keeper.  

It also explains in simple terms (useful as an evidence exhibit later) that land covered by byelaws is not relevant land.

Doesn't mean a PPC can't offer a contract on it, to a DRIVER, of course.  But a decent defence and WS will not admit who was driving in these circumstances, for obvious reasons, to try to get them to give up & discontinue!

ktvillan

Thanks Coupon-Mad - am I therefore misunderstanding what is meant by POFA "provisions" because I've been referring to thishttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted  and points 5,6 and 7 talk about conditions re notice to driver.   Am I looking at the wrong part of POFA?

ktvillan

Anyone else willing to help with my interpretation of POFA because I'm struggling to understand what is meant by the keeper provisions not applying and why there are considered to be no driver provisions even though sections 5-7 are all about the driver?

FrankCannon

The notice to driver (NtD) is a windscreen PCN. If the driver doesn't respond within 28(?) days, then POFA allows the PPC to issue a notice to keeper (NtK) with liability for the charge passing to the keeper, providing the PPC follows the POFA rules about dates and wording. In the case of ANPR, there is no windscreen PCN, so the PPC needs to deliver the NtK to the RK within 14 days for the keeper to be held liable.

henrik777

5,6,7 are conditions of paragraph 4 which MUST BE MET TO have the Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle.

5. The driver has to have incurred the charge but you can't enforce because the drivers identity is unknown.
6. The creditor has either placed a ticket on the motor followed by a letter by post to the registered keeper or used anpr and acquired the registered keepers from DVLA and sent a letter direct to the registered keeper.

7. The ticket placed on the motor must have these details.



Don't meet these criteria and POFA cannot apply and no amount of bluff can make it so.

ktvillan

Thanks both, clearer now.

Fruitcake

Here's one I did earlier. Have a look at the ninth post where I have tried to explain how you follow through the PoFA to show that a place where byelaws apply is not relevant land, therefore a keeper cannot be held liable.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76526580/#Comment_76526580

If you read it out loud and emphasise the parts in bold, it may make more sense. The crucial part are the words "other than" in para 3 (1) because it applies to the location in your case.

The last paragraph of that post refers to documents showing that East Midland Airport is covered by byelaws. In your case you need to find an equivalent document if possible that states the quay/harbour is covered by byelaws.

ktvillan

Thanks Fruitcake, that's pretty much the bits I picked out as relevant, but thanks for confirming.

Latest update on this, I wrote to them and pointed out they had not provided a proper breakdown of the additional costs versus original fine, and that this kind of thing had been judged abuse of process in recent cases.   

I also said that since they have specified in the SAR response that my data would be used “in order to enforce the terms and conditions of parking and to claim the unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicles which contravene the terms and conditions of parking”  I had concluded the charge was relevant to me as the keeper of the vehicle, that I would prepare my defence on that basis and that they could now no longer use my information for any other purpose.     

I asked them if they disagreed with any of my conclusions and then requested a full, un-redacted copy of the contract that allows Civil Enforcement Ltd. to operate at Custom House Quay, Falmouth TR11 3JT. 

Their response was a "breakdown" of costs that said original fine £100, debt collection costs £82 – I assume this won’t suffice in court?

They further said they had provided all documentation requested .  Since the SAR request included the line that they should provide “All other data you intend to rely on”, can I now conclude that they will not be able to use anything in court that they did not provide, including the contract to work on the land, and any breakdown of costs they subsequently decide to provide?

Finally I was thinking of writing again to point out that I will be defending this on various points – abuse of process if necessary, but primarily non-application of POFA in this case because it is land under byelaws (I have found the relevant document already).  Is it a good idea to point this out to them and hope they drop the case?  Or would that be showing my hand and would it be better to let it go to court and bring it up then?  

Once again any advice welcome.

ps is it relevant that the photos provided do not have timestamps on the photos themselves, do not show any distinguishing features of the entrance/exit of the car park (i.e. could have been taken anywhere) and the one showing my vehicle exiting does not show the registration?

Le_Kirk

You cannot expect to receive "all the other data they intend to rely on" as that will come with the witness statement.  A SAR is only good for getting data relevant to YOU.
Debt collections costs of £82 or £60 or whatever amount is the part that is not allowed and is the abuse of process.

Coupon-mad

PCN operational costs for a business model that involves sending some template letters are under £20 and are already in the parking charge. The Beavis case says at 98, 193 and 198 that a parking charge must cover the costs. That's why they can't then add £82 and pretend that's the 'costs of the operation'.

Then you have the POFA and the CRA 2015 which also knock the £82 into a cocked hat.