F1rst parking appeal Rejected

Le_Kirk

Every paragraph requires a number and simple numbering is preferred, just adjust the later numbers in the standard defence template accordingly.  Your last sentence seems to be asking a question rather then adding a defence point.

Coupon-mad

You've said 'In issuing the PCN' but you didn't get sent one. AIUI.

Your defence needs to make that clear, that no document calling itself a PCN, NTK or NTH was served on this Defendant (if that is true). The only 'PCN' the Defendant has to go on, is the one sent to the hire company who subsequently transferred potential liability by naming the hirer, however this Claimant failed to then follow the next steps in para 13 and 14 of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4.

321p123

Thanks for the feedback guys, i will amend these !

Just a quick one, i want to make sure im doing this correctly, so will give a brief summary.

A pcn was issued on the windscreen, this was appealed/rejected... appealed mid july 2020
A NTK was received by the company mid august 2020. Ignored as already appealed via the windscreen invoice.

A POPLA appeal was submitted, but popla got in contact saying the individual appealing was not the one named by first parking.
A letter naming the hirer/ lessee was sent to popla mid december 2020,appeal rejected but all further documentation came to me after this.

Am i right in thinking they do not have to send a NTH in this instance? and I should not use this in the defence? Or should i have still been sent a notice to hirer. 

basically it was popla who were notified of the transfer to hirer lessee and not the Parking operator. 
Thanks so much for the help !

Coupon-mad

They didn't have to send a NTH if you were identified in your appeal (the FIRST PCN appeal or the POPLA appeal) or by the hire firm as the driver.

If you were only presented as the Hirer then you should have won at POPLA based on no hirer liability. If you argued it like that and not as the driver, talking about what you did.

321p123

Ahhhh, in both appeals I was named as keeper of vehicle (my error). But not the driver in either, I know now that I should have appealed as hirer/lessee. 
But looks like it should be OK still as driver not named? 
Thank you !🙂

321p123

Ok, so a couple of small amendments changing what has been flagged ,Hopefully getting a touch better !
Appreciate any feedback love what you do lol


2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer/lessee of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The claimant has not identified the driver, The vehicle in question is a company vehicle which could be driven by at least six other employees as well as the defendant at the time the parking charge notice was issued.
Company vehicles are pool vehicles, the defendant could be driving a different vehicle day to day depending on circumstances.

4. Non compliance with the protecion of freedoms act 2012,The claimant was sent a signed statement from the vehicle owner company XXXX ,at popla appeal stage naming the defendant as the hirer/lessee.
The claimant has not complied with the strict terms of schedule 13 and 14 of Pofa 2012, where a notice to hirer must be issued with appropriate documents, including any discounts for prompt payment.
 
5. The particulars of the claim do not identify the driver, only offering a menu of choices, as such the claim fails to comply with civil procedure rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6.   In issuing the Notice to keeper, the claimant has failed to comply with the Pofa 2012. Under the conditions that have to be met for the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Paragraph 4), Paragraph 7(2)(f) states that the notice to the keeper must 'specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.' The claimant has failed to specify the period of parking. The PCN states a time of 10:54, which is not a period of time.

7.  No contract/forbidding signage. The PCN clearly states that it was issued due to not clearly displaying a valid permit, since the signage makes it clear that parking is authorised for permit holders only and does not make any offer of obtaining a valid permit to the defendant there can be no contract considered to have been made because an offer & subsequent agreement are the very essence of a legal contract. No legally binding contract would mean a claim of trespass may be accurate – a claim that can only be made by the landowner.

8. The signage is also contradictory to the layout of the area controlled, forbidding any parking for vehicles without displaying a valid permit, but in the claimants photographs, and with help of google street view, also seemingly inviting use of clearly marked Loading bays (which the vehicle in question can be seen in) and bus set down points, therefore any commercial loading cannot be performed without being penalised to the sum of one hundred pounds.

KeithP

In paragraph 4...
Have capital letters in The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Also... The claimant has not complied with the strict terms of schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14 of Pofa 2012,

In paragraph 6...
It's Schedule 4 paragraph 7(2) - leave out the (f) because you are quoting from other sub-paragraphs as well.

Jenni_D

4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the  Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 ... insert the italics and add the abbreviation, and then correctly refer to it thereafter as PoFA (not Pofa or pofa).

321p123

Thanks everyone so much for taking your time in helping out here, it really is appreciated ! Ive stuck the new defence down below with a few minor alterations.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer/lessee of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The claimant has not identified the driver.
The vehicle in question is a company vehicle which could be driven by at least six other employees as well as the defendant at the time the parking charge notice was issued.
Company vehicles are pool vehicles, the defendant could be driving a different vehicle day to day depending on circumstances.

4. The claimant was given a signed statement from the vehicle owner company XXXX , at Popla appeal stage naming the defendant as the hirer/lessee.
The claimant has not complied with the strict terms of schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14 of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, where a notice to hirer must be issued with appropriate documents, including any discounts for prompt payment.
 
5. The particulars of the claim do not identify the driver, only offering a menu of choices, as such the claim fails to comply with civil procedure rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6.   In issuing the PCN, the claimant has failed to comply with the PoFA 2012. Under the conditions that have to be met for the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Schedule 4), Paragraph 7(2) states that the notice to the keeper must 'specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.' The claimant has failed to specify the period of parking. The Notice to registered keeper states a time of 10:54, which is not a period of time.

7.  No contract/forbidding signage. The PCN clearly states that it was issued due to not clearly displaying a valid permit, since the signage makes it clear that parking is authorised for permit holders only and does not make any offer of obtaining a valid permit to the defendant there can be no contract considered to have been made because an offer & subsequent agreement are the very essence of a legal contract. No legally binding contract would mean a claim of trespass may be accurate – a claim that can only be made by the landowner.

8. The signage is also contradictory to the layout of the area controlled, forbidding any parking for vehicles without displaying a valid permit, but in the claimants photographs, and with help of google street view, also seemingly inviting use of clearly marked Loading bays (which the vehicle in question can be seen in) and bus set down points, therefore any commercial loading cannot be performed without being penalised to the sum of one hundred pounds.

CHEERS!!! 

Coupon-mad

I still question 'in issuing the PCN' and repeat what I said above.  You were not issued with a PCN, were you?