Help Needed - Defence for PPS PCN -WS Stage

Goodboy18

Hi All,
This is my first post here. Thanks for hosting such a superhelpful forum to help fight against unfair parking invoices/tickets.
I have got a claim as keeper of vehicle for an alleged breach dating Jan 2019. The driver of my car had parked the car behind Hounslow High Street closed shops area around 7.30pm on a Sunday. I had got the SAR response from PPS and pics taken by them -  car, the wall plate, NTK and the PCN.

Dates:
Alleged breach: 05 Jan 2019
All letters ignored since then
Claim Issue date: 10 May 2021
AOS: 14 May 2021
PPS Legal - Gladstones Solicitors

I see following issues with this claim:
1. The address mentioned on the claim form is not correct, infact that address is on the other side of high street, however pics taken are of Matisse Road
2. The NTK is non complaint - as kindly pointed by few forum members who are also on other forum website.
As this is my first post here the forum doesnt allow me to post links to the pics and google maps location - pls advise what should be done?

I have got the following for my defence in para 2 and 3:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The claim is for alleged breach that happened 29 months back, the Defendant doesn’t know who was driving the car at the time mentioned on the notice to the keeper.
3A. The signage in the car park is of a forbidding nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]. In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
3B. 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. This is due to:
a. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked at the material location (relevant land??) claimed on the claim form. The material location claimed on the claim form is 145 High Street Hounslow TW3 1LR. As per Royal Mail website 145 High Street doesn’t has the postcode TW3 1LR, but has a different postcode such as TW3 1QL. Also the pictures taken by the Claimant are not of the material location claimed on the claim form.
b. Further the Claimant has failed to:
i. Give period of parking required by 8 (2) (a)
ii. Failed to give the invitation to keeper required by 8 (2) (e)
iii. Failed to give a correct warning of keeper liability required by 8 (2) (f)

Appreciate if you can kindly help me in getting the defence finalised and if you see any other points that may have been missed.

Many thanks

Fruitcake

Please confirm the full name of the PPC.

I think the postcode error is minor and I doubt it will sway a judge.

Don't use sub paragraphs, but add a para 4 ( or more if required) and renumber everything after that.

If a NTD was issued, did the NTK arrive within the PoFA timescales? (Days 28 to 56 inclusive, the date of the alleged event being day zero).

Did the driver have permission/business at the site? IF so, has a complaint to the landowner been made?

Get pics of the site and signage. Use Google Streetview to see if there are any historical images that might help, although evidence goes with the witness much later in the process.

Goodboy18

Fruitcake said:

Please confirm the full name of the PPC.

I think the postcode error is minor and I doubt it will sway a judge.

Don't use sub paragraphs, but add a para 4 ( or more if required) and renumber everything after that.

If a NTD was issued, did the NTK arrive within the PoFA timescales? (Days 28 to 56 inclusive, the date of the alleged event being day zero).

Did the driver have permission/business at the site? IF so, has a complaint to the landowner been made?

Get pics of the site and signage. Use Google Streetview to see if there are any historical images that might help, although evidence goes with the witness much later in the process.

Full name of PPC - Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.
 I dont think so its a post code error - the whole address looks wrong. 145 High Street (Timpson) is on other side of the road, where as the pics are taken of the opposite side, tried to attach the pics, the yellow box shows where the pics are taken.

NTD was given and NTK came in time.

Did the driver have permission/business at the site? IF so, has a complaint to the landowner been made?
- No and No

Pics of site and signage:


Wallplate pic provided by PPS:


Also these parking signs are not illuminated and cant be seen until some external light is focused on them.

Fruitcake

Do you mean the whole address is wrong then? I'm confused, but that's not difficult. From your opening post I thought you meant just the postcode was wrong, but according to the map, the address on the NTK/court claim is not the same as that of the car park.

As for the signs, the charge is in tiny font, and additional charges for card payments are now prohibited. It's a minor point but should still be mentioned in a complaint to the unregulated parking company and the BPA, as well as in your defence.

Goodboy18

Yes, the entire address is incorrect. Sorry for the confusion, the address 145 High Street Hounslow is of Timpson, which is where google maps shows it. However the car pics taken by PPS are where the yellow box is on Google Maps, can you please advise how to write that in legal language.

I will mention the additional card charges in the defence  and subsequently to PPS and BPA.

Fruitcake

Goodboy18 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The claim is for alleged breach that happened 29 months back, the Defendant doesn’t know who was driving the car at the time mentioned on the notice to the keeper.

3. The signage in the car park is of a forbidding nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]. In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
In addition, the signs include additional charges for card payments that are now prohibited.

4. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked at the material location (relevant land??) claimed stated on the claim form at the time of the alleged event.
The material location claimed stated on the claim form is 145 High Street Hounslow TW3 1LR. As per Royal Mail website 145 High Street doesn’t has the postcode TW3 1LR, but has a different postcode such as TW3 1QL. Also the The pictures taken by the Claimant are not of the material location claimed stated on the claim form. They are in fact images of a different car park at a materially different location, having a completely different postal address (insert address here), some XXX metres/kilometres from the site stated on the claim form.

(If the NTK has the wrong location as well, then mention this. If the NTK has the correct location then mention that the location on the NTK and the location postal address stated on the claim form are substantially different as well. Include the distance, ideally in metres or km because the numbers are bigger than miles.

5. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying has failed to comply with the statutory keeper liability requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
This is due to:
The Claimant has failed to: -
b. Further the Claimant has failed to:
i. Give period of parking required by Paragraph 8 (2) (a)
ii. Failed to give the invitation to keeper required by Paragraph 8 (2) (e)

iii. Failed to give a correct warning of keeper liability required by Paragraph 8 (2) (f)

You have most of the information you need. How about something like the above.

Goodboy18

Many thanks, off to find the correct postal address of the  car park.
Just in case if I dont get that, is there anything else that i can do?

KeithP

Goodboy18 said:

Claim Issue date: 10 May 2021
AOS: 14 May 2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 14th May, you have until 4pm on Friday 11th June 2021 to file your Defence.

Not long now but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Fruitcake

Perhaps add to para 2 that several people/family members are permitted to drive/insured to drive/have access to the car.

Perhaps change this in para 2 as well, "The claim is for alleged breach that happened 29 months back," to something like this. 
"The claim is for alleged parking event that happened on an unremarkable day 29 months ago,"

and perhaps change this, "the Defendant doesn’t know who was driving the car at the time mentioned on the notice to the keeper" to something like,
"the Defendant has no recollection of who was driving at the time, and the Claimant has failed to identify the driver."


Note that no evidence goes with the defence, (which is emailed) so the map will be needed later in the process at the witness statement stage.

Goodboy18

Thanks, I will edit it as per your comments. The car was scrapped last year, does that need any mention?

Coupon-mad

No its irrelevant.