Parking Charge Notice - Vehicle Control Services Ltd

Fruitcake

Generally it only helps to keep the driver's identity a secret if the driver is not the keeper, and the scammers did not comply with the PoFA 2012.

If the NTK can hold the keeper liable then there is no advantage in hiding the driver's identity.
Sometimes it is better to admit being the driver so they their WS is exactly that, a statement from a witness on the day of the alleged event.

KeithP

But the keeper has more protections in law than the driver.

If they don't know who was driving then the Claimant has to use the Protection of Freedoms Act to transfer any liability the driver may have to the keeper.

So many of these parking companies are not able to jump through all the hoops necessary to be able to hold the keeper liable.

In other words, if if they don't know who was driving and they haven't conformed to the POFA requirements, then the keeper is not liable for anything the driver may have done.

Conversely, if they have met the POFA requirements, there is simply no point in trying to hide the driver's identity.

This is all explained in the NEWBIES thread.

nosferatu1001

Keith - but all it requires is the judge or Rep asking the quersiton, and the OP woul dhave to answer truthfully

Le_Kirk

sc-uk said:

Hi, Please find below what I am proposing for my defence:

"2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 3.  When entering the St Mary’s Gate Retail Car Park the Defendant did not see any displayed signage due to the car park entrance being on a left-hand bend and across a busy city centre pedestrian footpath, whereby where the Defendant's due care and attention was focussed. The parking space that was chosen by the Defendant on that day was close to the entrance and upon subsequent investigation not near to any other signage.  Whilst upon further Upon later investigation it was found that a ‘Welcome’ sign, which is located to at the entrance of the car park, it is not accompanied by a ‘Parking Terms and Conditions’ sign.  Two signs, which are either located on the building facade or and to on the rear of (the) other ‘Welcome’ signs around the car park.  These two signs do not accompany each other but are not in all prominent locations, there is signage are of different sizes and types, in different locations with different fonts, font sizes and different sign types, which is misleading and unclear.

For paragraph 2, adjust as indicated by @KeithP
Paragraph 3 would be better as above.  You have written about two (other) signs, is this correct?

KeithP

nosferatu1001 said:

Keith - but all it requires is the judge or Rep asking the quersiton, and the OP woul dhave to answer truthfully

Of course.

D_P_Dance

Unless they suffered from amnesia!

sc-uk

Hi All,

Thanks for your help on the two sections, I have updated them as suggested and include below for reference:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 

3.  When entering the St Mary’s Gate Retail Car Park the Defendant did not see any displayed signage due to the car park entrance being on a left-hand bend and across a busy city centre pedestrian footpath, where the Defendant’s due care and attention was focussed. The parking space that was chosen by the Defendant on that day was close to the entrance and upon subsequent investigation not near to any other signage.

Upon later investigation it was found that a ‘Welcome’ sign, which is located at the entrance of the car park, is not accompanied by a ‘Parking Terms and Conditions’ sign, which are located on the building facade and on the rear of (the) other ‘Welcome’ signs around the car park, but are not in prominent locations, are of different sizes and types, with different fonts and font sizes, which is misleading.

Le_Kirk

That needs numbering for every paragraph OR just incorporate the part starting "Upon later investigation........." into the paragraph #3.

sc-uk

Hi All,

I received a 'Notice of Change of Legal Representative' via post the other day stating that their legal representative has ceased to act on their behalf and that they will now be acting in person.

Is this some sort of tactic; is it normal? They have offered to settle a reduced amount in their covering letter, which I intend to ignore.

Fruitcake

This is the second change of legal rep we have seen this week. We can but speculate the reason why, but it makes little difference to your case.