PCN Claim Form

is_data

Could I please ask both @KeithP and @Fruitcake the same question:

I have been going through some other defences submitted by various posters on the forum here. Could you please advise whether the following points need to be explained in the defence at paragraph 3/4:

1. the circumstances of the claim; 
2. what type of car park it was;
3. why the PCN was issued (failure to pay, failure to display a permit, overstay) etc.

Any guidance is most appreciated. Thanks

Fruitcake

You need to set the scene for the judge. Explain that it is a London Underground Station car park, a railway asset where Railway byelaws apply meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable.
Explain that the driver entered and what they would or wouldn't have seen. Explain why the keeper isn't liable because the site is not relevant land.

Be concise and precise, but make sure you get the most important points across.

KeithP

is_data said:

Could I please ask both @KeithP and @Fruitcake the same question:

I have been going through some other defences submitted by various posters on the forum here. Could you please advise whether the following points need to be explained in the defence at paragraph 3/4:

1. the circumstances of the claim; 
2. what type of car park it was;
3. why the PCN was issued (failure to pay, failure to display a permit, overstay) etc.

Any guidance is most appreciated. Thanks

The answer is - yes, to all three. But only to set the scene.

Remember, your Defence is the place for legal arguments. 

is_data

Thanks both! I will draft something up and have it posted here for review by midday tomorrow.

is_data

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

3. The Defendant was first notified about the parking charge several years after the latest date of the alleged contraventions 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 claim is in respect of parking charges for contraventions such as parking without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket, parking after the expiry of time paid for and car not parked correctly within the markings of the bay space. The alleged contraventions took place on a London Underground Station car park, a railway asset where Railway byelaws apply. 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.

4. The Defendant cannot recall who was the driver on each of the dates of alleged contraventions which could have been multiple authorised people. 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 I please be advised whether the above appears sufficient or needs further amendments? Many thanks.

Le_Kirk

I would put the first sentence of #4 in #2 and do not repeat the last sentence of #4, i.e. delete #4.

SayNoToPCN

No idea why I said VCS. Sorry. 
Howveer if this was a railway land, the operator must not mention POFA and holding the keepr liable, as that would be unlawful. Did their NtK mention the keeper could be help liable?

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this line, no need to help them describe their case:

The claim is in respect of parking charges for contraventions such as parking without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket, parking after the expiry of time paid for and car not parked correctly within the markings of the bay space. 

is_data

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 latest date of the alleged contraventions 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 alleged contraventions took place on a London Underground Station car park, a railway asset where Railway byelaws apply. 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.

Thanks @Le_Kirk and @Coupon-mad - I have made the amendments as suggested. Could you please advise whether there is any further changes or any additional information that needs to go on here? Many thanks in advance.

is_data

SayNoToPCN said:

No idea why I said VCS. Sorry. 
Howveer if this was a railway land, the operator must not mention POFA and holding the keepr liable, as that would be unlawful. Did their NtK mention the keeper could be help liable?

I am posting the redacted NTK as I am unsure how to check whether there is or isnt a mention of POFA as per your query.