Can the RK still name the driver after a lost POPLA appeal?

Beano456

Coupon-mad said:

Another poster has been working on their counterclaim in a similar scenario this week where the rk was sent a claim even though (in that case) the rk had twice named and given the postal address for the driver.  The PPC misled him about this part of the POFA as well.  Misleading business practices are illegal.

Thanks for that, is this the thread by Nosy that I've just seen. Will keep an eye on that.

Coupon-mad

@Nosy won his counterclaim and I remembered your situation due to another Carflow case with a counterclaim.   Thought it was time to bump your thread as you've gone quiet but your profile shows me you are still actively using the forum this month.

Someone else reported winning a £750 counterclaim against a PPC last week, and @bargepole started a thread to report about a successful £1500 counterclaim where the wrong person was pursued for 5 years by another PPC:

VCS v Ferguson, Claim No. G2QZ60G1, 14/5/21 (Portsmouth County Court). 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6285333/vcs-hit-for-1-500-counterclaim-5-years-worth-of-harassment/p1

What's the latest?  Are you defending a claim and have you counterclaimed, @Beano456?

Beano456

Coupon-mad said:

@Nosy won his counterclaim and I remembered your situation due to another Carflow case with a counterclaim.   Thought it was time to bump your thread as you've gone quiet but your profile shows me you are still actively using the forum this month.

Someone else reported winning a £750 counterclaim against a PPC last week, and @bargepole started a thread to report about a successful £1500 counterclaim where the wrong person was pursued for 5 years by another PPC:

VCS v Ferguson, Claim No. G2QZ60G1, 14/5/21 (Portsmouth County Court). 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6285333/vcs-hit-for-1-500-counterclaim-5-years-worth-of-harassment/p1

What's the latest?  Are you defending a claim and have you counterclaimed, @Beano456?

Hi CM, No I’ve heard absolutely didley squat from Carflow since my last post. In my case Conor didn’t go as far as issuing a claim and didn’t have the courtesy to let me know what his intentions are; so I guess it’s a case of waiting out 6 years until SB. September will be 1 year closer.

Great to hear about Nosy’s success. I’ve not seen any update to his thread yet but that will be very handy for my case, should Conor be foolish enough to take it further. If I remember from Nosy’s case, Conor tried to argue that the issue of a LBA counted as the start of the commencement of legal proceedings. In my case he can’t even try that bollox as I never received any notice and informed them of drivers name & address before the issue of any LBA.

I’m tempted to write back to ask Conor if he could at least have the courtesy of letting me know how he wishes to proceed.

Beano456

Not much to report but I did receive this in reply to my enquiry into what their intentions were. 

This parking charge notice remains outstanding. If you pay the outstanding amount of £120.00, we will consider the matter closed and will not take it any further. We will continue to follow our internal legal procedures but unfortunately cannot prioritise individual cases. However, please be advised that we do intend to take this matter to court should the charge remain unpaid.

Kind Regards,

Carflow Team

Johnersh

I appreciate we all know this, but....

This point really isn't a good one from the ppc. CPR 7.2 states expressly:
'Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant.' 

So, there is little doubt what Parliament intended when PoFA schedule 4 was drafted and which provides at s. 5(2):
'Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.' 

(my emphasis) 

If Parliament intended to impose on the public any shorter period to respond they would have done so.

Proceedings cannot start with a letter of claim since that is very often the first a defendant knows of the matter and indeed the purpose of the pre-action protocols (the clue is in the name) is to allow negotiation and stocktake without formal court proceedings.

*sighs: steps off soapbox*

Johnersh

The ppc has given a generic response. If the driver is named they can run along and pursue them instead. 

As the o/p potentially has a complete defence the ppc can be informed of that. In theory, any claim would be capable of summary judgment and costs as it would have no reasonable prospect of success (assuming D had fully discharged its obligations as keeper and was not driver) . 

Beano456

Johnersh said:

I appreciate we all know this, but....

This point really isn't a good one from the ppc. CPR 7.2 states expressly:
'Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant.' 

So, there is little doubt what Parliament intended when PoFA schedule 4 was drafted and which provides at s. 5(2):
'Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.' 

(my emphasis) 

If Parliament intended to impose on the public any shorter period to respond they would have done so.

Proceedings cannot start with a letter of claim since that is very often the first a defendant knows of the matter and indeed the purpose of the pre-action protocols (the clue is in the name) is to allow negotiation and stocktake without formal court proceedings.

*sighs: steps off soapbox*

Thanks, that nicely sums up the situation. In this case they can't even try it on by saying the letter of claim was the start of legal proceedings, as they were provided with details of driver prior to sending a LBA.

They ignore and don't wish to discuss these important facts, but instead issue a half-arsed reply like some petulant little child who can't get their own way.

Beano456

Johnersh said:

The ppc has given a generic response. If the driver is named they can run along and pursue them instead. 

As the o/p potentially has a complete defence the ppc can be informed of that. In theory, any claim would be capable of summary judgment and costs as it would have no reasonable prospect of success (assuming D had fully discharged its obligations as keeper and was not driver) . 

Yes, fully discharged obligations as keeper. Given that Carflow is fully aware of the impossible hurdle faced, I'm surprised they haven't opted to go after the driver instead.

Coupon-mad

Continuing against you is easier for a rogue PPC. 

For example, ParkingEye are far from perfect but they never play this game.

Beano456

@Johnersh makes a good point about summary judgment approach. Should they do decide to issue a claim I think this is something worth concidering and take the ball from the claimant and get it thrown out at an early stage.

I was following another poster who was fighting in similar circs and at the court stage but I can't find any reference to it and beleive the posts were removed and he's no longer a forum member. Anyone know why?