*Updated* SUCCESS against BW Legal/UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd

Le_Kirk

Rosa_Klebb said:

Le_Kirk said:

4. The vehicle was in use by a relative who, when visiting the Defendant, made appropriate use of the visitors parking space in the residential car park where the Defendant lives.

This is confusing - is it your vehicle that was being used and of which you are the registered keeper?  Is the claim form in your name?  If it was your vehicle, why did the relative have to use a visitor space.  The defence has to explain to the judge as concisely as possible the circumstances surrounding the event.

Thanks and may take that out.  My main vehicle was in our allocated space, my other vehicle in long term use by a family member who no longer lives with us was using the visitor space.  I'm not sure what it adds in any case.  Sufficient just to say that I was not the driver without confusing matters perhaps?

Who is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and who has received the court claim?  If it is you, are you trying to beat the system by having two cars at the same address or is it just coincidence that another vehicle registered to you but used by ANO was using the visitor space on that day?  Whatever, you are going to have to explain it clearly so that a judge (well anyone) reading the defence can understand the circumstances.

Redx

Rosa_Klebb said:

Le_Kirk said:

4. The vehicle was in use by a relative who, when visiting the Defendant, made appropriate use of the visitors parking space in the residential car park where the Defendant lives.

This is confusing - is it your vehicle that was being used and of which you are the registered keeper?  Is the claim form in your name?  If it was your vehicle, why did the relative have to use a visitor space.  The defence has to explain to the judge as concisely as possible the circumstances surrounding the event.

Thanks and may take that out.  My main vehicle was in our allocated space, my other vehicle in long term use by a family member who no longer lives with us was using the visitor space.  I'm not sure what it adds in any case.  Sufficient just to say that I was not the driver without confusing matters perhaps?

Stick to Keeper but not the driver if that is true

If you are confusing us , you are definitely confusing a judge

Rosa_Klebb

Castle said: Sounds like the family member is the actual keeper of the vehicle, not you.

No I am the registered keeper and owner of the vehicle.  It was on loan to a family member.  I think I will not mention this if it just seems to confuse the matter.

Redx

Rosa_Klebb said:

Castle said: Sounds like the family member is the actual keeper of the vehicle, not you.

No I am the registered keeper and owner of the vehicle.  It was on loan to a family member.  I think I will not mention this if it just seems to confuse the matter.

So you are the registered keeper but was not the driver , so that is 2 in your defence

You can be an RK of more than 1 vehicle , I know I am 🙃🙃

Ownership is irrelevant here , it's 2 entities , keeper and driver

Rosa_Klebb

Redx said:

So you are the registered keeper but was not the driver , so that is 2 in your defence

You can be an RK of more than 1 vehicle , I know I am 🙃🙃
Ownership is irrelevant here , it's 2 entities , keeper and driver

Yes registered keeper, but not the driver at the time.

Redx

So say so in 2
Now post your proposed draft for 2 and 3 below , amending and adapting the paragraphs to suit based on the feedback you have received so far

Rosa_Klebb

Okay so here we go then, my amended defense.  Any better?

The facts known to the defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle XXX but was not the driver at the time.  Liability is denied.

3. The Defendant cannot be held liable as ‘Keeper’ due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘Keeper Liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

4. As a leasehold owner at XXX, the Defendant’s residential Leasehold Contract states that the Leaseholder has the rights as follows: “The rights for the Lessee’s visitors to park one roadworthy private motor car on a Visitor’s Parking Space for short term parking on a first come first served temporary basis and subject to any regulations made by the Management Company”.  There is no mention in the Leasehold Contract of any ‘24hr parking limit’ for Visitor parking, or of ‘parking charges’ in the car park area.  The Defendant has never accepted, or had the opportunity to accept via the Management Company, any contract with the Claimant.

5. The residential development is owned by XXX, who are the Freeholders of the car park in question.  I have not seen, or been provided by the Claimant, confirmation of authorisation from XXX, or license agreement between XXX and the Claimant devolving authority or giving permission for the Claimant to operate on this site.  The Defendant suspects that no such permission exists.

6. The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) and is signed up to their Accredited Operator Scheme.  The Claimant is therefore duly required to adhere to the operational requirements as stipulated in the IPC’s Code of Practice.  The Defendant can demonstrate that the signage in the car park, on which the Claimant relies, does not comply with the requirements stipulated in the IPC Code of Practice at the time their Parking Charge Notice was issued.  The car park signage is both inadequate and insufficient for any contract to have been formed or implied.  The Defendant has already highlighted this to the Claimant, with clear photographs that disprove the Claimants assertions.  The Defendant, is unsure therefore why the Claimant continues to pursue this Parking Charge Notice.

D_P_Dance

So, you had two cars but only one parking space.  Your solution was to park it in a space reserved for visitors.  Where did visitors park?

Rosa_Klebb

D_P_Dance said:

So, you had two cars but only one parking space.  Your solution was to park it in a space reserved for visitors.  Where did visitors park?

I have already covered this.  My second car was in long term use by a family member who was visiting me at the time.  Hence as a visitor she was entitled to use the visitor space.  The car I use was in my allocated space as normal.

Rosa_Klebb

Castle said:

Rosa_Klebb said:

Le_Kirk said:

4. The vehicle was in use by a relative who, when visiting the Defendant, made appropriate use of the visitors parking space in the residential car park where the Defendant lives.

This is confusing - is it your vehicle that was being used and of which you are the registered keeper?  Is the claim form in your name?  If it was your vehicle, why did the relative have to use a visitor space.  The defence has to explain to the judge as concisely as possible the circumstances surrounding the event.

Thanks and may take that out.  My main vehicle was in our allocated space, my other vehicle in long term use by a family member who no longer lives with us was using the visitor space.  I'm not sure what it adds in any case.  Sufficient just to say that I was not the driver without confusing matters perhaps?

Sounds like the family member is the actual keeper of the vehicle, not you.

Again I have already covered this.  I was the registered Keeper according to the DVLA as my name and address was on the V5.  But I was not the driver.  Someone else driving the vehicle for a period of time makes no material difference to who the registered Keeper is.