One parking Solution taking me to court.

fwesh

Redx said:

fwesh said:

I certainly do......so Issue date is 12 February, I am the defendant, car park was Citibase Brighton - 4 PCN charges, and apparently the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. 

Read the court report in this thread feedback today to see what a judge accepts when a driver enters a private car park when passing a sign

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6055468/excel-myparkingcharge-final-demand/p11

Then tell us again how the Driver didn't agree to a contract !! Or are the judges wrong in law ?

Do the drivers agree to an implied contract of not driving above 30 on a 30 mph road , under threat of penalty if they breach that limit ? Or 70 on a motorway ?

Does the driver agree in an implied contract not to drive on the right in the UK ? Unlike sacoolas who hasn't been prosecuted yet for doing so ?? She didn't sign any written contract after all !!

Or do we physically sign paperwork as we drive on our roads ?

Think about it

hmm, well, drivers have spent time studying terms and conditions on the road and are then tested on whether they have understood them,  the driver entering a dark unlit carpark that had a small sign which he failed to notice (if they wanted him to notice a sign there are ways of doing this!) is unlikely to have understood the contract that he didn't see....

fwesh

fwesh said:

Redx said:

fwesh said:

I certainly do......so Issue date is 12 February, I am the defendant, car park was Citibase Brighton - 4 PCN charges, and apparently the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. 

Read the court report in this thread feedback today to see what a judge accepts when a driver enters a private car park when passing a sign

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6055468/excel-myparkingcharge-final-demand/p11

Then tell us again how the Driver didn't agree to a contract !! Or are the judges wrong in law ?

Do the drivers agree to an implied contract of not driving above 30 on a 30 mph road , under threat of penalty if they breach that limit ? Or 70 on a motorway ?

Does the driver agree in an implied contract not to drive on the right in the UK ? Unlike sacoolas who hasn't been prosecuted yet for doing so ?? She didn't sign any written contract after all !!

Or do we physically sign paperwork as we drive on our roads ?

Think about it

hmm, well, drivers have spent time studying terms and conditions on the road and are then tested on whether they have understood them,  the driver entering a dark unlit carpark that had a small sign which he failed to notice (if they wanted him to notice a sign there are ways of doing this!) is unlikely to have understood the contract that he didn't see....

but I understand what you are saying, don't rely on the signage as an excuse

Redx

fwesh said:

Umkomaas said:

apparently the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.  

A categoric denial then!  Have you checked what the signs on site say?  They are the contract with the driver. Have a close look and then let us know please.

on a small board of 40cmsx38cms, unlit and grey colour with faint font.

Attention, private land terms and conditions apply
by parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms.
you agree to pay a parking charge notice (this is written in 5mm font) in the sum of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue, this is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days of issue.  you will be liable for additional parking charges for each and any subsequent 24 hour period (or part thereof) of the vehicle remains etc.  

So the driver did agree , if they saw the sign !!

Hence why good signage is crucial in these cases

However , you were not the driver , so as the registered keeper they can only hold you liable for the actions of the driver if they complied with POFA 2012 , so did they ?

Plus the driver apparent paid some money in restitution , not you , so maybe the wrong name is on the claim form ??

Think about it

fwesh

For some reason I have lost the long answer that I wrote!
the driver returned to the site and took pictures of the signage (which has since been changed and the charge has now gone down to £80) later on.  He didn't see it on entering the site at 9pm and it is smaller than that recommended by the BPA of 450mmx450mm.

the driver paid some money in restitution, but it is unclear what exactly he has paid for.  total £171 plus £60.  There were 6 NTK letters to me - each one varied from £170 per charge to £340 per charge depending on which solicitors sent them.  only 4 are being taken to court.  I have also just received a further final demand for £100 from a solicitor for another date (this is all so confusing)

I don't know if they have complied with POFA 2012, I will spend some time researching.....

KeithP

fwesh said:

Issue date is 12 February, I am the defendant...

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th February, you have until Wednesday 3rd March to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th March 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Redx

It's confusing for us all , but the driver making payment is a sign of guilt and remorse , but they are not the defendant , you are

Because you have a court claim in your own name having received postal NTK,s to you as registered keeper , you need to defend as a non driver keeper who is either liable under POFA , or not liable under POFA so not liable at all

It may well end up as you not liable and then they issue a court claim against the actual driver , someone who has already paid some money to them

This other letter may not be about the 4 PCN s on this court claim

Mr son needs to learn to take responsibility for his actions when in charge of a vehicle !! But that doesn't assist you with the current claim

FrankCannon

Is this the car park site ?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8331798,-0.1350147,3a,60y,112.63h,86.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sf6lFnDIpk3He7xpWUNdCpw!2e0!5s20201001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Johnersh

Might I suggest the o/p sets out exact particulars of claim on here or at least looks at them carefully.

Chances are that 2 were paid off, leaving 4 outstanding.  They obviously cannot claim twice for the same PCNs. 

The fact is that if the o/p is the named keeper the liability can be transferred and this is now your debt to defend, even if everyone accepts that the driver can now be identified. 

So, If the o/p's errant son communicated *at all* with the parking company as to who was driving at or around the time of his payment, that may be a decent argument that prior to issue the ppc were aware that it was him who was driving, which would allow the o/p to run the shaggy defence "it wasn't me" and the claim should not have been issued to me. 

fwesh

Johnersh said:

Might I suggest the o/p sets out exact particulars of claim on here or at least looks at them carefully.

Chances are that 2 were paid off, leaving 4 outstanding.  They obviously cannot claim twice for the same PCNs. 

The fact is that if the o/p is the named keeper the liability can be transferred and this is now your debt to defend, even if everyone accepts that the driver can now be identified. 

So, If the o/p's errant son communicated *at all* with the parking company as to who was driving at or around the time of his payment, that may be a decent argument that prior to issue the ppc were aware that it was him who was driving, which would allow the o/p to run the shaggy defence "it wasn't me" and the claim should not have been issued to me. 

Johnersh said:

Might I suggest the o/p sets out exact particulars of claim on here or at least looks at them carefully.

Chances are that 2 were paid off, leaving 4 outstanding.  They obviously cannot claim twice for the same PCNs. 

The fact is that if the o/p is the named keeper the liability can be transferred and this is now your debt to defend, even if everyone accepts that the driver can now be identified. 

So, If the o/p's errant son communicated *at all* with the parking company as to who was driving at or around the time of his payment, that may be a decent argument that prior to issue the ppc were aware that it was him who was driving, which would allow the o/p to run the shaggy defence "it wasn't me" and the claim should not have been issued to me. 

1.The Defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge issued to vehicle....at Citibas.
2. the PCN details are (date plus 4 x PCN numbers)
3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the contract) thus incurring the PCN(s)
4. the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.  D is liable as the driver or keeper.  Despite requests the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages. 
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 
£640 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.  2. interest at a rate of 8%per annum persuant to s.69 of the county Courts Act 1984. from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.14 until judgement or sooner payment.  3. costs and court fees

Coupon-mad

FrankCannon said:

Is this the car park site ?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8331798,-0.1350147,3a,60y,112.63h,86.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sf6lFnDIpk3He7xpWUNdCpw!2e0!5s20201001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Yes, terrible lack of signs there and no 'P' entrance sign.  But what a daft place to leave your car for a week...

Anyway no different than any other case - use the template defence and show us what you put in #3.  If they had the name & address of your son and knew he was driving from any contact he made with them or their solicitors then you (as keeper) were not liable if and when OPS had the driver's name and postal address, as Johnersh rightly says.

When you get the SAR look very closely at the photos of the yellow envelopes and what the wording says on the yellow envelopes because OPS had an empty version they were reported in another case, as placing on a windscreen for the photo then removing it, coming back the next day and doing the same thing, .etc.  The yellow packets said 'you will receive a PCN in the post' and the packet was empty, even when left on cars.   

You can also tell, if the yellow envelope date was followed by a Notice to keeper sooner than day 28.  The SAR will reveal these dates and photos.