CP plus county court claim

Smart_Owl

Coupon-mad said:

Yes I think I know what you are saying, but show us your planned #2, #16 and #17 and confirm that you have found the April 2020 statement of truth for the bottom of your defence, above your signature and date (see NEWBIES thread, or Google it).

Yes, I found April statement of true. Sorry I will post #2, #16, #17 As soon as possible, In 1 or 2 days.  Didn't have proper access to laptop to put it together and post it. 

Smart_Owl

In the meantime, I would like to ask few general questions about court procedures and few other bits. 
 
1. In the Newbie thread there was written about SAR application but it was in section about pre claim stage. As it is already claim does the keeper still has to do it? 
If yes, is there formal way to request SAR fro the PPC or just a free form. 

2. Representation in Court - I found link somewhere in forum with the video which explains how county court works. Everything seems clear.  But there was only claimant and defendant. Who can represent keeper in court? Can it be the same person as a witness ? And what is persons who represents role is. Does the person who represents speaks to the judge on behalf of defendant or stays in room something like a witness ? 
Apologies if I didn't make this question clear, but If I would have to represent keeper in court would help to know what my role would be as I saw courts only in movies...  and have no clue about general process of this.

 3. Trespassing - I didn't understand this one very well and thought this is not relevant to the situation. However, I saw PCN sent to keeper and pictures were taken on the road, which was with all the yellow lines, bus stops etc. So clearly that's not private road, after the bit where the pictures were taken road is smaller, and I didn't understand if it is the private road  or not. And checked in maps its the same name road name (big one which looks like public and small one) which goes all the way alongside the parking and then connects to different public road. There are many small entrances from that road to the parking so if driver would like to enter car park then the driver would have to leave that road, there is an exit from the same road to petrol station(don't know if its the same land owner) which is opposite from car park. The PCN says The vehicle was recorded ON OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY. 
I don't know if what I wrote is clear and makes any sense. How do I check if it's private road or public? and if its public can they take pictures of the car on the road and state that it is on their client's property? Drivers could take that road and not even have to enter car park just drive pass next to car park, or go to petrol station? 
I know it's a lot of reading. So thank you for your time. 

nosferatu1001

1) send a sar. Easy. Email to the DPO at the ppc. 

2) a witness cannot also be a Lay Rep for the defendant. Does the defendant need a lay rep? A witness is someone who..well, witnessed an event that has something to do with the case 

3) call your council. The highways dept. Will tell you if the road is public. They can take pictures FROM anywhere they like, but your vehicle needs to be ON the private land in any pictures otherwise they have no proof of where the vehicle is on their land...

Umkomaas

There is a link to a SAR template in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post (to the LegalBeagles' site). 

Coupon-mad

If you are a lay rep for the keeper they have to attend court too, but you both sit together and only the Lay Rep can speak apart from if the D is questioned by the C's rep, or at the end of the hearing, the Judge might speak to the D to check costs/loss of earnings if the D wins.

Fruitcake

To act as a lay rep, print off the Lay Representative (Rights of audience) Order 1999, and take it with you on the day. Show the court usher and judge if required.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

Do ask the council whether the road where the car was parked is public or private. Include the photos from the scammers in your query.
If the road is indeed public then complain to the council, DVLA, and the ICO about the data breach since the scammers had no rights to access the keeper's personal data.
Also complain to the DVLA KADOE department that the scammers have breached their KADOE agreement. This should be complain about the scammers AND the DVLA, so two separate complaints. The scammers should not be requesting personal data for an incident on a public road, and the DVLA should not be releasing the keeper's data. 

Also complain to the local Mayor and your MP as well as the MP where the alleged event took place.

You only need to write one basic complaint then modify it for each outfit. 

For KADOE complaints,

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

For data mishandling complaints,

datarelease.team@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

For ICO complaints,

https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/your-personal-information-concerns/

Local and national press might be interested as well.

This all assumes the land concerned is public and not private.

Smart_Owl

Hello, 
Sorry that it took so long to post but I was extremely busy and didn't want to post before going through some threads first. 
Defence will focus on keepers liability ( as the PCN's were sent 2-5 months from alleged parking event) and exaggerated amounts claimed.
 
Current 2, 16 and 17 paragraphs are
2.  In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme.  However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £1020. Which is equal to £170 per PCN. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case.  

16.   The Defendant was the registered keeper of this vehicle but was not the only insured driver. In the Particulars of Claim it is stated that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. A compliant Notices to Keeper was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable for the charges as the keeper of vehicle. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015). 

17. It is not established thus far, whether the vehicle was parked for the whole periods stated on Parking Charge Notice’s or entered private land for multiple shorter visits during the period stated, which were wrongly recorder as long visits. 

some particulars are: 3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms  on Cs signs ( the contract) , thus incurring the PCN(s) 
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. 

As sign's and contract bit is already covered in other paragraphs, the keeper didn't put nothing about it in 16 and 17 
the reason of paragraph 17 is that they stated vehicle was parked, but picture is just on entering and leaving car park. And in 2019 I found article that  another driver was sent PCN for long stay in the same car park, but company canceled as he proved he made couple shorter visits not one long one. Should I put it in defence or it is evidence bit? 
Is it good to put in defence the dates when parking charge notice were sent to show how late they came? 
Thanks for your replies. Can't wait to get this over with. 

KeithP

A compliant Notices to Keeper was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable for the charges as the keeper of vehicle.

You need to rationalise that sentence by mentioning only one of either POFA paragraph 8 or POFA paragraph 9.

Only one of those paragraphs is appropriate to your case - depending on whether a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle or not.

Coupon-mad

2.  In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme.  However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £1020, which is equal to £170 per PCN. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case and falling foul of the earlier authority in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.   Both cases are binding authorities but in the 2012 case, the Court of Appeal found that £135 would be an unrecoverable penalty but a claim for the parking charge itself would not, and as a result, ParkingEye dropped the double recovery business model and pursued their £85 parking charge in the later case against Mr Beavis.  

Smart_Owl

2.    In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme.  However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £1020, which is equal to £170 per PCN. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case and falling foul of the earlier authority in the ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Both cases are binding authorities but in the 2012 case, the Court of Appeal found that £135 would be an unrecoverable penalty but a claim for the parking charge itself would not, and as a result ParkingEye dropped the double recovery business model and pursued their £85 parking charge in the later case against Mr Beavis.

16. The Defendant was the registered keeper of this vehicle but was not the only insured driver. In the Particulars of Claim it is stated that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. A compliant Notices to Keeper was not properly served in strict accordance with 9 of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable for the charges as the keeper of vehicle. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015). 

17.    It is not established thus far, whether the vehicle was parked for the whole periods stated on Parking Charge Notice’s or entered private land for multiple shorter visits, which were wrongly recorder as long visits. 

Did some silly mistakes as posted earlier, now slightly corrected all three paragraphs. Does 17 is too short ? should expand or it's fine as it is?