Urgent -County Court SIP Parking Limited - Ticket Dispute

OhVADR

@nosferatu1001 - SAR ? i originally appealed the ticket with SIP when the ticket was first served. This appeal was declined online.
@Le_Kirk - Thankyou for the comments, i have tried to update based on some reading done last night. 

Section 16

The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago. It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention. 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.

 Section 17

It is not accepted that the location provided adequate signage to give notice of alternative payment. The defendant has made effort to purchase a valid ticket (please see supporting evidence) this show a valid parking ticket present for the accused date. Claiming frustration of contract towards working methods of payment being available at the time of ticket purchase. The defendant was also not aware of the boundaries outlining the two different car parking providers, inadequate signage was present to distinguish between the two areas of operation. The defendant was caused to make a transnational decision that would not have been needed had relevant lighting, accurate signs and working alternative payment methods had been in place.

OhVADR

@Coupon-mad - Apologies CM i have updated the section 17 def to reflect.  I will also take use of the updated template def which was posted yesterday. In regards to attaching the Southampton case can evidence for this be found on the forum ?

Again apologies im not law def savy by any means and this is all a learning process, thank you for your patience. 

Coupon-mad

You can't say this:

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 yet admit who the driver was in 17

It is not accepted that the location provided adequate signage to give notice of alternative payment. The defendant has made effort to purchase a valid ticket (please see supporting evidence)

And you don't attach any evidence with a defence.  The Southampton case is the only thing to append at this stage. 

Your points don't tell the Judge what happened about the two car parks being next to each other with no clear boundary.  Go back to basics and explain what the Defendant knows, and if that means admitting to driving (if true?) and dropping the mention of th NTK and POFA, then do so.

nosferatu1001

The newbies thread tells you - or did - to send a Subject Access Request to the claimant, as soon as you get a claim form or LBC, so you knwo EVERYTHING they have. 
If youve missed that, DO IT once you have completed the defence. 

OhVADR

@nosferatu1001 - SAR has been requested though SIP claim this can take anywhere between 1-2months to process.

@Coupon-mad - i have gone with the alternate option for section 16 that admits the driver was the keeper of the vehicle which in this case is True. i have also updated section 17 to better reflect what happened on the night of ticket purchase, for the sake of my brain i hope this draft is better

Section 16

Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

Section 17

On the 30th September 2018 the defendant tried to park his vehicle for the 2nd night using SIP Parking receiving an invalid parking ticket in the process, even though a valid ticket was provided for the date. It is not accepted that the location provided adequate signage or options to give notice of alternative payment on the night of the 30th. This led the defendant to make effort to purchase a valid ticket present for the accused date but using the wrong car parking machine. Claiming frustration of contract towards working methods of payment being available. Due to the layout of the SIP Car Park ‘Tariff Street’ and Unbranded car park directly adjacent there was little to distinguish between the two areas of operation, insufficient boundaries, accurate signage, lighting and working alternative payments methods made it very unclear to the defendant what the process was to be followed in the case of payment machines being broken. Due this the defendant was caused to make a transnational decision at the wrong machine which overall lead to an ‘invalid ticket display’ PCN being served. Had an alternate method of payment been in place and accurate steps to follow in the event of a machine not being in order this whole event would have been avoided.

Umkomaas

OhVADR said:

@Coupon-mad - i have gone with the alternate option for section 16 that admits the driver was the keeper of the vehicle which in this case is True.

Section 16

Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

Well those two statements contradict each other. 

Coupon-mad

Yes I am more confused than ever.  You want to lie in your defence by denying driving?

Le_Kirk

OhVADR said:

@nosferatu1001 - SAR has been requested though SIP claim this can take anywhere between 1-2months to process.
@Coupon-mad - i have gone with the alternate option for section 16 that admits the driver was the keeper of the vehicle which in this case is True. i have also updated section 17 to better reflect what happened on the night of ticket purchase, for the sake of my brain i hope this draft is better

Section 16

Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

Section 17

On the 30th September 2018 the defendant tried to park his vehicle for the 2nd night using SIP Parking receiving an invalid parking ticket in the process, even though a valid ticket was provided for the date. It is not accepted that the location provided adequate signage or options to give notice of alternative payment on the night of the 30th. This led the defendant to make effort to purchase a valid ticket present for the accused date but using the wrong car parking machine. Claiming frustration of contract towards working methods of payment being available. Due to the layout of the SIP Car Park ‘Tariff Street’ and Unbranded car park directly adjacent there was little to distinguish between the two areas of operation, insufficient boundaries, accurate signage, lighting and working alternative payments methods made it very unclear to the defendant what the process was to be followed in the case of payment machines being broken. Due this the defendant was caused to make a transnational decision at the wrong machine which overall lead to an ‘invalid ticket display’ PCN being served. Had an alternate method of payment been in place and accurate steps to follow in the event of a machine not being in order this whole event would have been avoided.

Your section 17 is very confusing and first of all it contradicts what you state in section 16, secondly it does not flow, thirdly, this: -

receiving an invalid parking ticket in the process, even though a valid ticket was provided for the date

makes no sense.  What are you trying to say?

You are keeper YES/NO

You were the driver YES/NO

This: -

Claiming frustration of contract towards working methods of payment being available

also makes no sense.  Do you mean you could not buy a ticket because the machine was broken or was in the wrong place in the car park and you didn't know where the boundary between the car parks was?  It is a frustration of contract if something for example, all the payment machines in a car park are out of order, prevents you from completing the contract by buying a ticket.

Just lay out what you want to say in simple phrases so we can help you put it together.

PPCs have 30 days to respond to a SAR.

OhVADR

Driver - No one was driving the vehicle at the time when the ticket was given, it was parked stationary in a car park. 
Keeper - I was the registered owner of the vehicle.

On the night of the 30th i was unable to buy a ticket due to both machines in the SIP Car Park being out of order/broken.
The boundary between SIP and the unbranded car park made it hard to distinguish what machines related to each car park.

(receiving an invalid parking ticket in the process, even though a valid ticket was provided for the date)
I am trying to state that i was given a PCN for an invalid ticket even though effort was made to purchase a valid ticket. 

Points i am trying to get across in my defense.
- A ticket was bought for the night of 30th, im trying to show that i wasn't trying to rip SIP off and gain a free night of parking. I went out of my way to spend £10 on a ticket.
- Payment options were out of order/broken leaving me no alternative option to purchase valid ticket.
- boundaries between the two car parks were not well defined causing me to end up buying a ticket from the wrong machine

nosferatu1001

Driver - is the person who parked it there. 
Dont play games. "Driver" is obvious as a term. 
Keeper - no, no you were and are not the "registered owner" of a vehicle, because no such concept exists. You might be the registered keeper, you might be the keeper, but there is no registry of ownership.