HELP WITH MY DEFENCE : GLADSTONES COUNTY COURT CLAIM

DebtHurricane

thanks 

Umkomaas

DebtHurricane said:

Cant for the life of me remember if I got a proper NOTICE TO KEEPER. I am pretty confident I didn't get one. Ill go with that.

In terms of the rest of what I have said- is that all ok? I've read all the posts about filing a defence but with my case its pretty simple- there aren't any bays which are marked so there's not much more to say?!

It's fairly simple - if you had a windscreen ticket (or they state you did), it's para 8. If your first notification was a letter in the post stating the photographic capture was by ANPR camera (or the nonsense that the DVLA are currently accepting - Manual Number Plate Recognition - ie a man with a smartphone) and the postal notification arrived before day 28, then you use para 9. 

DebtHurricane

Umkomaas- thanks it’s para 8 for me. They just slapped a ticket on the car and then never followed up with a NTK. 

Anything else I need to add or can I file it and be confident I’ll win?

KeithP

DebtHurricane said:

Cant for the life of me remember if I got a proper NOTICE TO KEEPER. I am pretty confident I didn't get one. Ill go with that.

Oh, you definitely got a Notice to Keeper.

The question is... did you get a Notice to Driver?

DebtHurricane

I can’t remember?

Umkomaas

DebtHurricane said:

I can’t remember?

A windscreen ticket is a Notice to Driver (NtD). 

DebtHurricane

Yes I got a windscreen ticket. 

DebtHurricane

Does anyone have anything to add to my defence?

Coupon-mad

Can you go back and delete the first defence you posted here in case a NEWBIE thinks that's the newest template version and tries to use it, please?

If you are admitting to being the driver then you need to remove the stuff about the POFA here and change it as shown (am I right to asume you were a tenant, renting the place not the owner?):

16.  The Defendant was the driver of this vehicle. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge,  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.  and any signs that may have been there created no relevant obligation or contract that could have overridden the rights and easements granted under the tenancy agreement.  There was no parking licence to offer because the Defendant already had proper authority and primacy of contract to park, without any onerous terms or charges.  The Claimant was in fact, interfering with residents' leases and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, thereby causing a private nuisance regardless of whether the managing agent (who is not the landowner) purportedly 'authorised' their actions.

17.  The Defendant was a resident of the ********** Estate and had a valid resident parking permit clearly displayed in the vehicle. The Claimant issued the alleged parking ticket stating: ‘no parking outside of a marked bay’. The estate has no painted or signposted parking bays.  There is no way to distinguish what a ‘marked bay’ should be as there are no physical markings. The Defendant avers that as there are no clear marked bays, it is impossible for the alleged contravention to have occurred and any alleged contract was void for impossibility.   Photographs:  Appendix D.

You do not attach any other appendices at this stage, only the A, B and C cases shown in the template thread.

DebtHurricane

Coupon-mad said:

Can you go back and delete the first defence you posted here in case a NEWBIE thinks that's the newest template version and tries to use it, please?

If you are admitting to being the driver then you need to remove the stuff about the POFA here and change it as shown (am I right to asume you were a tenant, renting the place not the owner?):

16.  The Defendant was the driver of this vehicle. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge,  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.  and any signs that may have been there created no relevant obligation or contract that could have overridden the rights and easements granted under the tenancy agreement.  There was no parking licence to offer because the Defendant already had proper authority and primacy of contract to park, without any onerous terms or charges.  The Claimant was in fact, interfering with residents' leases and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, thereby causing a private nuisance regardless of whether the managing agent (who is not the landowner) purportedly 'authorised' their actions.

17.  The Defendant was a resident of the ********** Estate and had a valid resident parking permit clearly displayed in the vehicle. The Claimant issued the alleged parking ticket stating: ‘no parking outside of a marked bay’. The estate has no painted or signposted parking bays.  There is no way to distinguish what a ‘marked bay’ should be as there are no physical markings. The Defendant avers that as there are no clear marked bays, it is impossible for the alleged contravention to have occurred and any alleged contract was void for impossibility.   Photographs:  Appendix D.

You do not attach any other appendices at this stage, only the A, B and C cases shown in the template thread.

Thanks so much CouponMad. I have made those changes (yes I was a tenant). Am I ok to submit this now? It's not due till 14th April.