***Update*** Claim dismissed!

Molts

***Background***

Windscreen PCN issued by One Parking Solutions on residential estate for not "parking in marked bay". RK was not the driver. 1st appeal and POPLA rejected. DC trash ignored and now at LBC stage. SAR submitted and received back with the expected non-sensical trash and GS refusal to stop processing data.

Blessed with the offer of support from C-M but wanting to do as much groundwork with the defence as poss so as not to trouble her too much until defence submission is due! Defence under construction with generic parts gleaned from the plethora of advice available elsewhere.

Starting post in anticipation of a court claim and hoping for some help with some technical questions in advance in order to tailor the defence specific to the case.

Castle

Molts wrote: »

***Background***

Windscreen PCN issued by One Parking Solutions on residential estate for not "parking in marked bay". RK was not the driver. 1st appeal and POPLA rejected. DC trash ignored and now at LBC stage. SAR submitted and received back with the expected non-sensical trash and GS refusal to stop processing data.

Did they include a copy of the warden's notes in the SAR reply.

Molts

The NtK served by OPS was issued in conjuction with para 9 in spite of PoFA stating that windscreen tickets should be issued in conjunction with para 7 followed by para 8. I naively thought this would be a slam dunk win at POPLA for failing to tranfer liaibility but understand that their assessors are still coming to terms with timescales let alone more complex areas of the Act.

I argued that if the NtK was issued according to para 9 then the relevant timescale should apply and failed as was well outside the 14 day window. It did fall inside the 28-56 day window required by 7&8 but should therefore have been issued in conjunction with such.

Question is am I right and is it worth pursuing this line of defence hard? I'd like to think a DJ would see this as a complete fail to transfer liaibilty and therefore only the (unknown) driver can be pursued.

Should I respond to the LBC with this included or just wait for the CCBC summons to arrive?

Molts

Did they include a copy of the warden's notes in the SAR reply.

No. Just copies of the NtD, NtK, POPLA refusal, photos, final demand letter and the RK's original appeal.

Umkomaas

Notice to The Deep ...

Molts is sufficiently experienced in this stuff so not in any need of a C&P drop!

The_Deep

Thank you Umko. Do you know if he/she has read this?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html[/FONT][/FONT]

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Thank you Umko. Do you know if he/she has read this?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html[/FONT][/FONT]

I'm Umkomaas, not Mystic Meg!

Molts

Do you know if he/she has read this?

I have indeed. Interestingly (or not!) in this case the vehicle was parked on an access road so imho "not parked in a marked bay" is irrelevant. The only transgression if there was one, was that the rear of the vehicle was overhanging into a cross-hatched area albeit not causing any obstruction. This is not listed on the signage whilst access road parking is but never enforced and not mentioned on the PCN or NtK.

All appropriate residential parking points will be included in the defence. ANy opinions on my question regarding PoFA?

Question is am I right and is it worth pursuing this line of defence hard?

Umkomaas

ANy opinions on my question regarding PoFA?

If there is a failure to comply with the Act, then it's worth pursuing, but there are examples where some Judges regard some of the finer points of detail to be too trivial to concern them. Not right, but it's how it is.

I wouldn't hang too much on the point, but if you are raising it, you'll need to have your head fully around it (as I'm sure you have anyway) should you be asked to talk to it at any hearing.

Molts

Umkomaas wrote: »

If there is a failure to comply with the Act, then it's worth pursuing, but there are examples where some Judges regard some of the finer points of detail to be too trivial to concern them. Not right, but it's how it is.

I wouldn't hang too much on the point, but if you are raising it, you'll need to have your head fully around it (as I'm sure you have anyway) should you be asked to talk to it at any hearing.

I'm luckily enough to reside in/near C-M's locality so hopefully C-M will be doing the talking if it goes that far and she is available! I'm quietly confident C-M knows her way round PoFA :rotfl:

but there are examples where some Judges regard some of the finer points of detail to be too trivial to concern them

So do POPLA by all accounts...and thank you. I'll build it into the defence accordingly.

Coupon-mad

I'm quietly confident C-M knows her way round PoFA

I do, but it still smarts that a Brighton Judge didn't agree with me in Sand26's case where a very clearly NON POFA NTK said OPS 'assumed' the (grey-bearded) Defendant keeper was the driver (even though the CCTV showed it was his blonde wife!).

So I will have to try harder re the POFA in front of that Judge. We won on two other points, signage and lack of grace period.

What makes you say they are relying on para 9, specifically? Is it that the NTK says: 'you are warned that, under para 9...'? I think just say the NTD and NTK were not issued under paras 7 and 8 of the POFA and so the Defendant cannot be liable, and if they were not driving, say so clearly.

But due to that Judge, don't rely on the POFA as the main/only defence!