F1rst parking appeal Rejected

KeithP

You have blindly copied underlining and italics used by others to emphasise points.

321p123

Yeah coupon mad, there was a pcn issued to the windscreen to which I appealed as keeper of the vehicle,using the template from newbies, they rejected appeal and asked for the driver details.
I believe the automatically issued a Ntk in the first instance anyway.
 I also appealed to popla as 'keeper' but never as driver. My mistakes !!
Ty for reply!!

321p123

Hi Keith I thought that is what yourself and jenny d where asking me to do from your latest posts, to use bold italics and underlining? 

Jenni_D

No - we used emphasis to identify the changes.  

KeithP

321p123 said:

Hi Keith I thought that is what yourself and jenny d where asking me to do from your latest posts, to use bold italics and underlining? 

No.

Para 4 should look like...
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.

And para 6 should look like...
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.

Jenni_D

And none of it should be in bold, except maybe section identifiers.

321p123

Lol thanks so much guys 

321p123

Hey everyone i have just removed the mentioned errors with the bold and underlining, and will post below, hope that this one is ok !

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.

Jenni_D

In point 3 I'd change it slightly ...

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, and the date of the parking charge notice was an unremarkable day XX months/years ago.

Change the italics bit to represent the period since the PCN was issued.

Also, every paragraph is supposed to have its own number, so don't make the start of a point like it is a heading ... i.e. don't use a line break. (You did this in point 3 and also point 4).

321p123

Thank you so much jenni ! yeah thats a good point about the date of the pcn, I have added that one in!

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, and the date of the parking charge notice was an unremarkable day fifteen months ago.

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.