Court Defence advice please

Fruitcake

bob5678 said:

Fruitcake said:

bob5678 said:

Re. a defence about bad signing, how detailed should I be at this stage regarding issues with signage - I understand not to attach any evidence.
But would a bullet point list of different issues be a good idea? 
- eg, font size, height of sign, volume of text on sign, broken lightbulbs, darkness, bad positioning of signs, lack of signs in certain places, confusion around boundaries of public and private land, and also of different areas of private land each with different sets of parking rules.
(edited for clarity)

Signage is already covered in the template. Please, please look at para 9 (2) (f) as per my previous post, and stop going off on tangents.

You are rushing this when you should be trying to understand what we are telling you about the NTK failure.

Hi, ok thanks for this.
I have looked at 9 2 f - and I must not be understanding the point you are all helpfully making - as it looks to me like they are compliant with this point

this is from the NTK
"We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains funpaid from the keeper of the vehicle."

But it doesn't tell you when the 29 days starts, so how do you know what timescales they are using. The PoFA is quite specific, and does tell you when the 29 days start.

Like I said, you have months to learn how to understand it, but if you don't mention it now in your defence, you cannot use it in your WS.

bob5678

Fruitcake said:

bob5678 said:

KeithP said:

You have two days to file your Defence.

Just add the words that @Fruitcake suggested. You can argue the rest in the months to come - if you can still find someone to argue with. 

Just to be clear - these words:
"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."

And I sincerely hope you are right!

It is a small point, but YOU need to understand why the NTK fails to comply with the PoFA so you can explain it to the judge.

You need to mention the PoFA failure now, to give you time to understand it by the time you write your WS in several months time. You can say the NTK fails Schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2) (f) in your defence if you wish and therefore the scammers have failed to transfer liability to the keeper, who was not the driver.

Ok I think I follow, thanks

Redx

Although this NTK PCN omitted the discount , read that warning and compare to yours

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6243577/urgent-help-needed-county-court-claim-first-parking-dcb-legal#latest

It goes to show how pedantic POFA can be for keeper liability or not , but POFA never protects a driver , but definitely keepers

nosferatu1001

Look at the word GIVEN that you keep skipping over when you read POFA
Then look up what GIVEN means
Then look at the fact the NtK does not start counting from the "given" date

Le_Kirk

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must .................
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

Here is the extract from POFA, see if you can spot the difference between POFA and what the PPC have said.

bob5678

Thanks all I am currently re-reading this thread and links and then re-drafting a defence, which I will post here for feedback if that's ok

Fruitcake

bob5678 said:

Thanks all I am currently re-reading this thread and links and then re-drafting a defence, which I will post here for feedback if that's ok

Yes please. 

bob5678

I am still not understanding the finer points to do with POFA and the variations of wording on the NTK (and other NTKs)
but for the purposes of the defence, am I right in thinking I can just put the below sentence (in context) without going into further detail at this stage as to which points in POFA?: 
"the NTK failing to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable."
 

bob5678

I will post the whole Defence shortly, but here is the first part of section 3, relating to POFA:

"I first heard about this parking charge by post, in early March. Since then I have been harassed by a bombardment of letters and debt recovery threats.

The Notice to Keeper from the Claimant fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 and therefore the Claimant is incapable of holding the keeper liable."

bob5678

Defence points 2 & 3 only - I intend to copy and paste all the remaining points (1, and 4 - 18 and Statement of Truth in the template in their entirety.)

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

I deny being the driver at the time in question.

3.

3.1 I first heard about this parking charge by post, in March 2019. Since then I have been harassed by a bombardment of letters and debt recovery threats.

3.2 The Notice to Keeper from the Claimant fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 and therefore the Claimant is incapable of holding the keeper liable.

3.3 Despite not being the driver, since receipt of the NTK, I have visited the site at various times of day and documented what the driver would have seen and not seen:

a. Time of day – it was dark – winter after 18.17 (sunset was at 17.45)

b. Signs on entering private land: the only signs identifying entering a private carpark are situated on a roundabout, are obscured by trees, unlit, with relevant information in a small font size. In order to properly read this sign, one would need to stop in the middle of the roundabout.

c. Premier Park carpark is connected to ASDA car park, which has different rules and signage. The boundary between the two car parks is a wide avenue – a continuation of a carpark in fact – and the indication that one has left one private space for another is almost impossible to spot – the signage is not fit for purpose. The ajoining ASDA carpark does not have the same maximum stay rules.

d. Premier park signs within the carpark are on lamposts, the bottom of the signs are at a height of 2.3m / 7’6”, badly lit and/or unlit due to broken bulbs. The signs contain vast amounts of text in small blue font on a white background – unlike the clear signage in the Beavis case.

e. The car park is large, and if a driver were to park anywhere in the centre of it, and then walk to safety to a pavement, especially in the dark, they would not see any signs, once safely on the pavement, all signs would be facing away/backwards from them as pedestrians.

f. further points and evidence can be made to illustrate that the Premier Park signage was unfit for purpose as relates to the British Parking Association Approved operator Scheme Code of Practice, Version 7 , and that as such no contract was made.