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

Coupon-mad

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

But a paragraph 8 NTK (one that follows a windscreen PCN) doesn't have to offer a discount.

Redx

In which case stay as keeper and driver , with signage , Jopson , promissory estoppel etc

You should have appealed this at the time and gone to Popla with these arguments , to save all this angst and strife with court

KeithP

Coupon-mad 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. 

But a paragraph 8 NTK (one that follows a windscreen PCN) doesn't have to offer a discount.

POFA para 8(2)(g) and para 9(2)(g) both have exactly the same wording...

(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

What am I missing?

Coupon-mad

The fact that the discount was in the PCN on the windscreen.  There doesn't have to be a discount offered in the ensuing NTK.  

AlwaysTrying23

Redx said:

In which case stay as keeper and driver , with signage , Jopson , promissory estoppel etc

You should have appealed this at the time and gone to Popla with these arguments , to save all this angst and strife with court

Noted and lesson learnt. This is the first time I allowed a situation like this gather moment without my control. 

Redx

AlwaysTrying23 said:

Redx said:

In which case stay as keeper and driver , with signage , Jopson , promissory estoppel etc

You should have appealed this at the time and gone to Popla with these arguments , to save all this angst and strife with court

Noted and lesson learnt. This is the first time I allowed a situation like this gather moment without my control. 

Your post collection problem caused it to go this far , so it's fix it now

Post your new paragraphs 2 to whatever below , for finishing off because it's due today

And if coupon mad says there was no POFA breach or BPA CoP breach , then a driver based Defence should win

But that POFA fact was news to me and to KeithP

AlwaysTrying23

Coupon-mad said:

The fact that the discount was in the PCN on the windscreen.  There doesn't have to be a discount offered in the ensuing NTK.  

So even though PoFA states the NTK should include details of the discount offered, the fact that the affixed PCN did overrules the need for the NTK to have? #confused 

Coupon-mad

Yes.  ''Any discount'' doesn't mean there is one on offer in a para 8 NTK.

AlwaysTrying23

Redx said:

Post your new paragraphs 2 to whatever below , for finishing off because it's due today

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. Reference to ‘ Jopson V Home Guard Services, appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/09/2016’ where it was deemed unloading is not parking. 

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. They raised the barrier and so permission to enter and unload was granted which the driver did and left when completed, so promissory estoppel.  

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

Coupon-mad

Why are you numbering every sentence, instead of writing in paragraphs?