PCN Claim Form

is_data

Fruitcake said:

The only way that the scammers could possibly know the identity of the driver is if the driver or keeper told them.
If an appeal or any contact was made by the driver or keeper revealing the driver's identity was made, then not relevant land is no longer relevant.

If however the neither the driver nor keeper ever responded, or did not supply the driver's identity, then the scammers cannot possibly know the driver's identity, and certainly cannot prove it.
If that is the case, then the scammers are just assuming without any proof that the keeper was the driver. They may even try to rely on the often debunked criminal case of Elliot vs Loake to claim that on the balance of probabilities, the keeper was the driver.

So, unless the scammers have ever been given proof positive that the keeper was the driver, then go with the Not Relevant Land/Byelaws, keeper not liable defence in addition to all the other points in the template defence.

Show us the amended paragraphs 2 and 3 only (or any more paragraphs if needed, ensuring the paragraphs following have been renumbered).

Get digging into those points and show it to us when it's ready.

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. The Defendant cannot recall who was the driver on each occasion which could have been multiple authorised people.

3. The Defendant was first notified about the parking charge several years after the date of the alleged contravention under cover of a Formal Letter of Claim dated XX/ABC/2020 from QDR Solicitors. The letter stated that QDR Solicitors were instructed by ZZPS Limited, a debt recovery firm, on behalf of the Claimant. The Defendant immediately felt quite harassed by being bombarded by letters threatening, including but not limited to, County Court Proceedings against the Defendant, County Court Judgement, enforcement action, Warrant of Control and the use of Bailiffs in the recovery of total debt outstanding plus costs. 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.

Could you please advise whether details in respect of Not Relevant Land/Byelaws, keeper not liable as advised by Fruitcake above need to be further added to point 3 or added as an additional point 4? 

SayNoToPCN

Yes, otherwise it would not have been mentioned
You state that the claimant cannot hold the defendant liable, as the land is not "relevant land" for the purposes of schedule 4 of the Protection of.... (gve the FULL NAME) as it is subject to byelaws. 
Further and in the alterrnative, if the land is found to be relevant land, the claimant has chosen not to use the provisions POFA2012 to hold a keeper liable in any case, and merely seeks to rely on an assumption made without proof

Le_Kirk

Just add it to paragraph 3 as it is the same legal point about keeper liability.  You could remove all that stuff about threatening letters etc., as that is not a defence.  You might want to explain (briefly) why the claimant has not complied with POFA.

is_data

Le_Kirk said:

Just add it to paragraph 3 as it is the same legal point about keeper liability.  You could remove all that stuff about threatening letters etc., as that is not a defence.  You might want to explain (briefly) why the claimant has not complied with POFA.

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. The Defendant cannot recall who was the driver on each occasion which could have been multiple authorised people.

3. The Defendant was first notified about the parking charge several years after the date of the alleged contravention under cover of a Formal Letter of Claim dated XX/ABC/2020 from QDR Solicitors. The letter stated that QDR Solicitors were instructed by ZZPS Limited, a debt recovery firm, on behalf of the Claimant. 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. Also, the Defendant cannot be held liable as the land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it is subject to byelaws. Further and in the alternative, should the land be found to be relevant land, the claimant has chosen not to use the provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the keeper liable in any case, and merely seeks to rely on an assumption made without proof.


Can I please check with you folks whether a redacted scan of the SAR would be of any help to ascertain this bit at the end of para 3 where it is being stated: "the claimant has chosen not to use the provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the keeper liable in any case, and merely seeks to rely on an assumption made without proof."

Redx

No exhibits or evidence are submitted with the Defence , so no , no scan , yet

is_data

Redx said:

No exhibits or evidence are submitted with the Defence , so no , no scan , yet

Apologies - I meant to ask whether any of you folks would like to review a redacted copy of the NTK from the SAR to ascertain whether the statement at the end of para 3 above holds: "the claimant has chosen not to use the provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the keeper liable in any case, and merely seeks to rely on an assumption made without proof."

The reason I am asking this is I am not a legal person and, hence, thought it best to ask.

SayNoToPCN

Yes, buit you can normally tell - VCS have a templated statement that you will be held liable under the assumption you are the driver. 

is_data

SayNoToPCN said:

Yes, buit you can normally tell - VCS have a templated statement that you will be held liable under the assumption you are the driver. 

Hi there, I am unsure what VCS is. Please dont mind my limited knowledge in this respect.

KeithP

is_data said:

SayNoToPCN said:

Yes, buit you can normally tell - VCS have a templated statement that you will be held liable under the assumption you are the driver. 

Hi there, I am unsure what VCS is. Please dont mind my limited knowledge in this respect.

VCS = Vehicle Control Services Ltd - another private parking company.

But I don't know why they have been mentioned.

Fruitcake

SayNoToPCN said:

Yes, buit you can normally tell - VCS have a templated statement that you will be held liable under the assumption you are the driver. 

It's an NCP car park. Nowt to do with Vicious Control Scammers Inc.