CCJ. Parking fine sent to old address

ParkingMad

This is the car park shown on GSV from 2018

Redx

That signage is very impressive and meets all standards , not. 😁😁😁🤔🤔🤔

It will likely be patrons only

ParkingMad

Another view of the entrance

KeithP

Jenni_D said:

If it was issued (and put in the post) on 03-08 then it would be deemed delivered on 06-08 ... unless Saturday is not counted as a working postal day (even though it normally is).

POFA Sch4 9(6) tells us...

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

I.e. Saturdays are not considered working days in this context.

Jenni_D said:

Do you have any evidence that confirms when it was posted?

POFA Sch4 9(2)(i) says...

(2) The notice must -
...
(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

Olive_j

Jenni_D said:

Date of event: 23-07-2018
NTK must arrive within 14 calendar days, where Day 1 is the day after the event
Therefore the NTK must arrive with the keeper by 06-08-2018 latest

00: 23-07
01: 24-07
02: 25-07
03: 26-07
..
07: 30-07
..
11: 03-08 (Friday)
12: 04-08
13: 05-08
14: 06-08 (Monday)

If it was issued (and put in the post) on 03-08 then it would be deemed delivered on 06-08 ... unless Saturday is not counted as a working postal day (even though it normally is).

Do you have any evidence that confirms when it was posted?

Yes, it says on the SAR it was sent on the 6th, despite the PCN saying it was issued on the 3rd. 

Olive_j

Here’s the sign once you’re inside the carpark and realise:

Redx

So it's forbidding signage , doesn't mention how to obtain a permit , no offer , no consideration , so no parking contract , meaning the penalty rule aspect mentioned in the Beavis case at the Supreme court applies. Effectively it's trespassing , Which only a landowner can pursue , for damages , but no damage occurred !!

No clear entrance signs etc , which must fail the IPC CoP and Lord Dennings red hand rule

UK CPM cannot sue for trespass

So this all applies as well as tardy posting , failing POFA too

KeithP

Two points about that image (which may well have been covered earlier in this thread).

1) that is not a picture of the sign that is in the car park.
It is simply an image, an artist's impression, or office copy, if you like, of what the Claimant would like you and the court to believe is in the car park.

2) Those words AUTHORISED VEHICLES ONLY clearly state that if a vehicle is not an authorised vehicle then they are forbidden to park there. This in turn means that the driver of an unauthorised vehicle cannot possibly agree to a contract with UKCPM to park there. It is simply not possible for a party to agree a contract to do something which is forbidden.

Coupon-mad

There’s no entrance sign and I recall discussing this with @ParkingMad off forum and showing the evidence that there was once an entrance sign but it was removed.  

Ask @ParkingMad for the Google images that we talked about that show how the entrance signs disappeared.  They need to go with your WS.

You are right about the NTK not being served in time but you need to absolutely nail that and explain the difference between what UKCPM are saying and what their PCN History actually shows, that it wasn’t posted until 6th.

This is a slam dunk winning point for a keeper who wasn’t driving, but don’t expect the Judge to be with you unless you spell the dates out. And you need the confidence to tell the Judge that there is no adjustment allowed.  A PCN served too late cannot, as a matter of law, meet the POFA and cannot hold a keeper liable.

The fact that UKCPM have misled the court in their WS shows they know and have tried to hide the date and pretend it was posted on 3rd, when they know their own evidence shows that it wasn’t.

Olive_j

Thanks @Coupon-mad. Hopefully they don’t get away with it in the same way they managed to get away with claiming they did a soft search, despite no evidence of one.