UKCPM & Gladstones - County Court Defence

kimaru

Le_Kirk said:

If you can honestly state you were not the driver (think what you would tell a judge in court if asked the direct question) and the NTK fails POFA for the reasons you state and you actually possess a permit, then I think it is a strong defence.  It is for the claimant to prove their case not for you to disprove it.  The judge in court will see the same photos you do and can make up their mind based on the evidence before them.  In your defence, if you state you do have a permit, then you can show this as evidence when it comes to witness statement (WS) stage.  The results from the SAR are unlikely to appear before the defence has to be submitted (10th June) but anyway will be handier for the WS stage.

Thank you, that explanation is very helpful. I'm not going to mention having a permit, as I don't. I'll remove that from my defence.

The photos I received don't even show that the driver wasn't still in the car! Should I add that to my defence?

Is there a possibility they have more photos than they have shown me? That's why I was hoping the SAR would come before the defence.

Umkomaas

The photos I received don't even show that the driver wasn't still in the car! 

That double-negative says that the photos show that the driver was in the car. Is that what you are wanting to say?

kimaru

Umkomaas said:

The photos I received don't even show that the driver wasn't still in the car! 

That double-negative says that the photos show that the driver was in the car. Is that what you are wanting to say?

Thank you for picking that up, that's not what I was trying to say.
I was trying to say that there's no evidence that the driver wasn't still inside the car. Is this phrased better or still a double negative? 

If the driver was not in the car then you could assume it was parked for an unspecified duration, but the photos don't show that.

Umkomaas

kimaru said:

Umkomaas said:

The photos I received don't even show that the driver wasn't still in the car! 

That double-negative says that the photos show that the driver was in the car. Is that what you are wanting to say?

Thank you for picking that up, that's not what I was trying to say.
I was trying to say that there's no evidence that the driver wasn't still inside the car. Is this phrased better or still a double negative? 

If the driver was not in the car then you could assume it was parked for an unspecified duration, but the photos don't show that.

I haven't read back through the thread, but what are you hoping for in making the statement?  Are you saying the driver was in the car, if so why is that relevant?

Le_Kirk

Being in the car is not a defence, unless it was less than the time given in the ATA CoP for purchasing a ticket after parking where you might claim you were studying the terms and conditions on the signs BUT only if true!

kimaru

Umkomaas said:

kimaru said:

Umkomaas said:

The photos I received don't even show that the driver wasn't still in the car! 

That double-negative says that the photos show that the driver was in the car. Is that what you are wanting to say?

Thank you for picking that up, that's not what I was trying to say.
I was trying to say that there's no evidence that the driver wasn't still inside the car. Is this phrased better or still a double negative? 

If the driver was not in the car then you could assume it was parked for an unspecified duration, but the photos don't show that.

I haven't read back through the thread, but what are you hoping for in making the statement?  Are you saying the driver was in the car, if so why is that relevant?

The driver could still be in the car. Combine this with the photo timestamps only a few minutes apart. Does this not carry any weight towards a solid defence? In my mind, if the driver was shown as not in the car it would strengthen the claimants defence, but the photos don't show that. Or am I wrong?

kimaru

Le_Kirk said:

Being in the car is not a defence, unless it was less than the time given in the ATA CoP for purchasing a ticket after parking where you might claim you were studying the terms and conditions on the signs BUT only if true!

For purchasing a ticket it's 10 minutes, but this situation is permit parking only.

"If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." - BPA Code of Practice 13.1

They don't mention what a reasonable grace period is, but the space between the two photos is less than 5 minutes.

Le_Kirk

If the photos are from ANPR they will not show anybody in the car

DW190

Le_Kirk said:

If the photos are from ANPR they will not show anybody in the car

Photos uploaded by the op appear to have been taken manually from the rear of the vehicle a couple of minutes apart.
But surely if they are claiming "Not displaying a valid permit" they would need clear photos of the front windscreen dashboard.

1505grandad

" BPA Code of Practice 13.1"  -  UKCPM are IPC AoS members