County Claim CP Plus/ DCB Legal

BellieBe

I am, just didn’t know if I needed to add anything from that as well.

BellieBe

I'm seriously struggling. The Witness Statement gives an account of what happened on the day but this claim is for 8 different PCN's, all 5 years old. I've looked for threads that talk about motorway parking and also multiple PCN's and don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.
Is it any good to put CP plus' Witness Statement here for help? I feel like reading it is sending me round in circles. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, show us CP Plus' WS.

BellieBe

Do you need to see the Witness Statements from the "landowner's" as well? Incidentally they only have one signature, I'm sure I saw somewhere that they needed 2 to be valid. Is that still correct? 

Coupon-mad

Yes please show it as there may be other issues.  Don't redact it.

BellieBe

Don't redact any of it?

Coupon-mad

The landowner authority; please don't redact it.

BellieBe

Ok thx. I've just linked their statement & landowner authority. Can attach their sign pictures as well if needed. It's over 80 pages in total so didn't want to add everything!

Coupon-mad

OK, So:
- at the preliminary hearing, which is NOT your hearing, it is your husband's so he must attend (phone hearing?  he must email his number as the Order says...).

The Claimant's rep will likely ask if he was driving, because the WS says they want to ask that.  He must not lie.  It's court.  So, will he truthfully be saying:

(a) yes, every time (in which case the POFA goes out the window, just so he knows, but if he knows it was him he can't lie)

or

(b) no idea, as this was 5/6 years ago and my wife and family drive and used that car as well.  I was expecting to see evidence but the SAR reply doesn't show any evidence of some of the alleged PCNs. At least one looks like a double visit (or a visit one side of the motorway followed by a visit on the other side of the motorway on the return journey), or time spent filling up with petrol/air/water.  Imposing a 'total stay' over an entire MSA site is not lawful, because the Government policy requires a mandatory minimum 'two hours free parking' (i.e. parking and leaving the car in the car park section) as set out in the following document that appear to have been breached:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

- Mandatory:  Free parking for up to 2 hours minimum for all vehicles permitted to use the road served by the facility.

- PARKING CHARGES B19. At all types of site, where a charge is to be levied for parking beyond the mandatory two free hours, the charging regime must be clearly displayed within both the parking areas and the amenity building. Drivers must at all times be afforded the opportunity to pay the charge on the site, before leaving and without the necessity to use a mobile phone. Cash payments must be accepted. 

I had a quick look at Pease Pottage MOTO for example and can't see any CP Plus/2 hours/ £100 charge signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/M175hXgHGhkn81Ha6

Do the same for all of them.  Create some real evidence.

BellieBe

Yes, he's given them his details.
They have sent maps with the layout of their signs and 2 dozen pictures of signs at the 3 locations, not that any of the exhibits are labeled so that I can know what is what... but I'll look into that a bit more.

This is WS at this point:

1. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:
2. The claim is very difficult to make sense of as the Particulars of Claim do not correspond with PCN’s. In the first point, the Judge is respectfully asked to strike out the following 3 PCN’s which are not even included on the Particular of Claim: xxx,xxx and xxx
3. The Defendant was the registered keeper of this vehicle but was not the only insured driver at that time. Several members of my family and friends also had access to the vehicle. The Claimant says The Defendant “simply needs to answer the questions “Were they driving?” “Did they overstay?” I doubt that is a question that anyone could answer after 5 years. There is no right to assert that the Defendant is liable based on some sort of assumption that they were driving. A Keeper cannot prove a negative several years after an event and the burden of evidence rests with the Claimant. 
4. Following this, the Claimant states that the claim is issued against the Defendant on the basis that they are the Registered Keeper and did not nominate the driver, (Witness Statement Yates pt. 16). However, if Compliant Notices to Keeper (‘NTK’) are not properly served in strict accordance with Schedule 4 Section 9 of the POFA then there is no keeper ability. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity. The Claimant states they do not seek to rely on the POFA 2012 to recover these PCN’s. I question that this is because they cannot establish that they have properly served Compliant Notices. I would argue that indeed they have not as I have no recollection of even receiving these PCNs, with the receipt of them this year coming as a complete surprise.
5. The Claimant’s signage evidence is not sufficient. The Department of Transport DfT Circular 02/2013 B19 stipulates: At all types of site, where a charge is to be levied for parking beyond the mandatory two free hours, the charging regime must be clearly displayed within both the parking areas and the amenity building. Drivers must at all times be afforded the opportunity to pay the charge on the site, before leaving and without the necessity to use a mobile phone. Cash payments must be accepted.  
6. Additionally, the Roadchef Maidstone Sign Locations & Key in Claimant’s Exhibit ppt 80 are from 2019 so not a true representation of the time of issue.
7. Claimant’s exhibit 4 shows any sign that mentions costs is for a maximum of £100 (or in some locations, £90 (pg 23) and makes no mention of additional costs which the Claimant have repeatedly added. 
8. At least one PCN looks like a double visit (or a visit one side of the motorway followed by a visit on the other side of the motorway on the return journey), or time spent filling up with petrol/air/water. Imposing a total stay over an entire MSA site is not lawful, because the Government policy requires a mandatory minimum ‘two hours free parking’ I.e. parking and leaving the car in the car park section) as set out in the Department of Transport DfT Circular.

Abuse of Process points...