Delayed issue of PCN

Fruitcake

Use all the points in the template defence plus any others that are relevant. 

1 When the NTK arrived is irrelevant if the driver's identity is known. The keeper and anything related to them including  the Notice to Keeper is irrelevant
2 Include IPC CoP breaches if they are not mentioned elsewhere in the template defence. This could be the basis or part of para 3 of the template defence. The defendant was not given the opportunity to read, understand, and comply with the parking terms on the signs. This is a breach of the IPC CoP section X para Y.
The DVLA requires all parking companies to be a member of an ATA, and requires those members to comply with the CoP in order to obtain keeper data via their KADOE contract with the DVLA.
The claimant failed to comply with the IPC CoP and therefore should not have obtained the keeper's data.

nosferatu1001

1) Except the COP does not say what you claim! It does NOT say they MUST use POFA! Neither of them do! We keep repeating this. If you disagree then cite sources because you need to provew it. 
2) You are planning to state you are the driver. That is done in the defence and not later. As soon as you mention "I am the driver" then any mention of POFA is removed. It is utterly, totally and completely irrelevant. Totally

Coupon-mad

even though the Code says they MUST follow certain protocols, Acts of Parliament and timescales?

Again - no, it doesn't.

johnedit

Hi, All.

OK- I need to submit my Defence Document early next week and I THINK I have taken onboard all pevious comments and suggestions people have kindly posted. If things go to the next stage my Witness Statement will rely on poor signage (similar - I believe - to the Beavis Case) and insufficient time allowed to read and accept or decline their Contract and leave the area - no reliance on issue dates of the PCN/NTK or acquisition of Keeper Details under the PoFA you will be pleased to hear! 

So, below - for your comments or approval - are the first few points of my Defence Document and these will be followed by the wordage supplied by Coupon-mad in the 'Newbies' page.

Thanks for your patience and  assistance!

_________________

 DEFENCE

___________________

 1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 The facts as known to the Defendant:

  2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver and is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.         The Claimant has identified themselves as an Accredited Operator and Member of the International Parking Community (the IPC) and, as such, they have agreed to operate in accordance with the IPC’s Code Of Practice.

However, it is submitted that the Claimant failed to adhere to or follow the specific requirements of a number of IPC Code Of Practice directives and effectively therefore, no contract was entered in to by agreement, conduct  or otherwise.

4.         Abuse of Process.

 The Claimant’s addition of £50.00 has been determined by the following County Court Judges as an abuse of process and accordingly the associated Claims were dismissed.

  5.         The Particulars of Claim set out.... etc....... as per Coupon-mad's wordage

1505grandad

Para 4  -  I refer you to the following post:-

"23 March at 10:53PM

Coupon-mad

Remove this. The template already more than covers the fact that added 'debt recovery' costs are double recovery (don;t use the phrase 'abuse of process'):

 4.         Abuse of Process.

 The Claimant’s addition of £50.00 has been determined by the following County Court Judges as an abuse of process and accordingly the associated Claims were dismissed."

Coupon-mad

4.         Abuse of Process.
 The Claimant’s addition of £50.00 has been determined by the following County Court Judges as an abuse of process and accordingly the associated Claims were dismissed.

No.  £50 is allowed, it's the capped sum for legal fees.

Also, didn't you see that the entire thrust of the lower part of the template defence already deals with the added £60 that is double recovery.  This is done to death, the subject is ''clobbered like a Canadian seal cull'' one Judge said to me in court...i.e. already well covered in the template.

You have still offered the Judge NO FACTS about the car park or why the car was there.  A trader not fully complying with a CoP is not a defence to a contractual term of parking.

KeithP

3.         The Claimant has identified themselves as an Accredited Operator and Member of the International Parking Community (the IPC) and, as such, they have agreed to operate in accordance with the IPC’s Code Of Practice.
However, it is submitted that the Claimant failed to adhere to or follow the specific requirements of a number of IPC Code Of Practice directives and effectively therefore, no contract was entered in to by agreement, conduct  or otherwise.

That's quite a major leap there, from the Claimant failing to abide by the IPC's CoP, to "therefore no contract was entered into".

You have been quiet for over two weeks, then suddenly, two days before your Defence is due, and at a weekend too, you are asking for urgent help.

Yes, your Defence is due early next week, very early next week.

On 23 March I wrote...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 12th April 2021 to file your Defence.

followed by...

...please don't leave it to the last minute.

followed by...

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

johnedit

1505Grandad - Thanks for pointing that out. I will remove Point 4 and renumber the remainder.

Coupon-mad. Thanks. The other factor that I was going to include in my Witness Statement is that the 'infringement' is documented by 2 images of the vehicle stopping on a road for a period of about 3 minutes which, I would submit, is the time to read the Terms and decline by leaving the site. Are you saying that these 2 points are not sufficient to contest the Claim?

KeithP - Apologies for disturbing you. I assumed that people would read Posts and respond only if they had some free time to do so. As 90% of my Defence Document has been kindly provided by Coupon-mad, I thought a couple of days would be enough time for people to comment on a couple of paragraphs from me. Sorry if I offended you by Posting at the weekend. In answer to the point you raised, I would sublit an image of the Sign and it would be clearly unreadable by a driver and it was/is not possible to stop there to read it. Accordingly, no Contract had been effectively presented and one was not accepted. Is this not a reasonable position to take? Thanks for any support you may be able to offer.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad. Thanks. The other factor that I was going to include in my Witness Statement is that the 'infringement' is documented by 2 images of the vehicle stopping on a road for a period of about 3 minutes which, I would submit, is the time to read the Terms and decline by leaving the site. 

You need to say that in your defence.

Are you saying that these 2 points are not sufficient to contest the Claim?

If you mean a vague mention of an alleged breach of the CoP that you didn't explain (at all), plus ''abuse of process'' for adding sixty quid = NO.

KeithP

johnedit said:

In answer to the point you raised, I would sublit an image of the Sign and it would be clearly unreadable by a driver and it was/is not possible to stop there to read it. Accordingly, no Contract had been effectively presented and one was not accepted. Is this not a reasonable position to take? Thanks for any support you may be able to offer.

Ah, but the point I raised was that you were asserting that, because the Claimant had failed to abide by the ATA's CoP, no contract was made.

That is a bit different to what you are now saying - that because the driver couldn't read the signs then no contract was made.