Urgent help needed - County Court Claim - First Parking / DCB Legal

AlwaysTrying23

@Redx

Evening,

The deadline for my defence is 4pm tomorrow and I am really concerned around admitting to being the driver since a keeper has more protection and I believe PoFA has been breeched by not offering the keeper the discounted payment on the NTK. It only demanded the full £60 amount. 

PoFA paragraph 8 (2) g -  A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper - ‘inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment‘.

If the judge asks whether I was the driver then I will answer truthfully but until then, I wonder whether I should not give anything away to these parasites. 

Also is it worth referencing JOPSON v HOME in point 4 or save for witness statement? 

Below is my paragraph 2 and 3 from Coupon Mads defence that I was happy with and about to submit until this ‘driver admission’ doubt came to the training session!! 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.       This PCN relates to a staff car park at a university site. 

4.       The driver was delivering computer cables to the onsite university contractors which took less than 10 minutes.

5.       There were no loading / unloading bays nor signage stating this was prohibited.

6.       The car park has a manned barrier entry system via intercom and the car park attendant was aware of the drivers intentions.

7.       The use of different terminology, sizes and illegible text on the signage caused confusion. 

END OF MY ADAPTED PARAGRAPHS BASED ON 2 & 3 FROM THE COUPON MAD TEMPLATE

Redx

Are you sure about that breach ?  Positive ??

Normally I would expect an NTK PCN to state £100 discounted to £60 for early payment as a discounted rate , so check that NTK again , because an NTK PCN should always give at lease a 40% discount for early payment !!!

How much is the figure on the signs ?? £100 or £60 ?? , The NTK PCN should agree with the sign , minus the discount

Personally I think it was £100 discounted by 40% to that £60 figure , meaning no breach

Besides which , if you are asked who was driving and you reply ME , pofa is burning in the fire , useless to you

Show us a redacted picture of the NTK so we can see the figures and the discount etc

A picture paints a thousand words , no ambiguity with a picture

In 6 , I think I would add that security raised the barrier and so permission to enter and unload was granted which the Driver did and left when completed , so promissory estoppel

AlwaysTrying23

 I have checked. Sign definitely says £60 reduced to £30. NTK only offers £60. 

Will figure out how to post a picture and post shortly. 

AlwaysTrying23

Let’s see if these pictures post. 

AlwaysTrying23

If the pictures fail to upload please try: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vvqhenj7b9zzy9/AADgWi1ZwTrrLW9SAJSL-xOka?dl=0

Redx

How strange that there is no mention of a discount of 50% on that NTK PCN !!!

You covered up the dates and the payment , so I assume the dates complied with POFA but the payment said £60 ??

However , it may be irrelevant if they out the driver in court by asking the defendant questions , so an admitted driver defendant has signage issues , paperwork issues , promissory estoppel to drive onto the site to unload , so landowner authority flowing via security , Jopson where unloading is not parking , etc

Jopson and promissory estoppel should be included in your paragraphs from 3 onwards

Keep both options open , keeper first , holding the driver arguments in it as your backup

KeithP

AlwaysTrying23 said:

I believe PoFA has been breeched by not offering the keeper the discounted payment on the NTK. It only demanded the full £60 amount. 

PoFA paragraph 8 (2) g -  A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper - ‘inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment‘.

Yes, having seen your pictures of the signs, I agree with you. You are right.

You should add something about the NTK failing to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable. 
Expand on that at the WS and exhibits stage.

AlwaysTrying23

Redx said:

You covered up the dates and the payment , so I assume the dates complied with POFA but the payment said £60 ??

Jopson and promissory estoppel should be included in your paragraphs from 3 onwards

Yes the dates complied as a notice was affixed to the vehicle. 

Do you feel the below case reference is sufficient?

4. The driver was delivering computer cables to the onsite university contractors which took less than 10 minutes. Reference to ‘ Jopson V Home Guard Services, appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/09/2016’. 

6. The car park has a manned barrier entry system via intercom and the car park attendant was aware of the drivers intentions. They raised the barrier and so permission to enter and unload was granted which the driver did and left when completed, so promissory estoppel. 

Redx

I think I would add a note as to why Jopson was included , so maybe that unloading is not parking

Also remove and driver from 2 , to bring the POFA and BPA breach into it by mentioning both in one more paragraph

AlwaysTrying23

KeithP said:

You should add something about the NTK failing to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable. 

Thanks Keith, so something along the lines of:

Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in particular paragraph 8 (2) g whereby the claimant fails to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4".