Preparing a Defence for UK Park management

Daiapolon2021

Le_Kirk said:

I wouldn't offer to send any more from you to confirm your identity.  They only require a scan of your V5C (providing it has your current address) and maybe anything they have sent to you to confirm it is your address.  Offering them a chance to delay matters is not a good idea.

understood thanks!

Daiapolon2021

thanks All here is my draft defence using the 2020 template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1. Is Times new Roman 12 the right font? For the points at number 3 is it OK to have them as sub-bullets of point 3 as I have done below? Also at point 3 is it ok to right 'to the Defendant's best knowledge?

All comments welcome!

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the lessee of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant admits to being the driver of the vehicle for the purpose of this PCN. 

3.  To the Defendant’s best knowledge:

      i.         The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

    ii.         The Defendant does not feel the information regarding the parking was portrayed in an adequate manner. The signs were not immediately visible, and the font size of the Terms and Conditions on the Parking conditions were too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The parking is supposedly made for those living in a nearby residential complex but that was not explained in any way.

   iii.         Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within their allocated parking bay, that were not clearly visible on the pavement, nor indicate which bays are allocated to whom.

   iv.         In the parking conditions the PPC stated there needed to be a valid permit to park but there was no way to acquire one. In the Defendants opinion, if it was not possible to park there for anyone without a valid permit, it should have been stated in a different way so it was clearly understood that parking was forbidden for those who could not have any way of acquiring a valid permit and/or were not part of the nearby residential complex.

     v.         In issuing the PCN, the claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Under the conditions that have to be met for the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Paragraph 4), Paragraph 7(2)(f) states that the notice to the keeper must 'specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.' The claimant has failed to specify the period of parking. The PCN states a time of 20:29, which is not a period of time. [For Forumites: they only state 'observed time' and 'time of issue']

   vi.         The photographic evidence of the front of a vehicle windscreen, on the PPC's Formal demand, does not clearly show that the photo in question is of the Defendants vehicle. There are no identifying features in this photo that suggest it is of the Defendants vehicle, such as a number plate or vin number.

 vii.         The photographic evidence provided shows the vehicle situated in an area with no clear marked bays; therefore, it has not been made clear and obvious where the claimant constitutes where drivers are made liable for parking charges.

Thanks in advance to all.

KeithP

Please have another read of @Fruitcake's post of 31 August at 10:52PM.

Does the PPC already know who was driving?
I.e. have you told them who was driving?

If they don't know that then it would be silly to tell them who was driving.

With hired or leased vehicles the parking companies really struggle to conform to the terms of POFA such that they can hold the keeper liable for anything the driver may have done.

Coupon-mad

The template defence already covers the points about landowner authority and unclear signs, so no need for 3i, ii or iii.

Also, why are you admitting to driving? If you do that then any point about the POFA 2012 has no legs, either. 

Daiapolon2021

thanks All I misunderstood the template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1. Will send a revised version now. Appreciate all the support. 

Daiapolon2021

All,

Here is the revised Defence with your comments. Are there any other points you would mention? Happy to add a picture of the Parking conditions if it helps your understanding.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  To the Defendant’s best knowledge:

      i.         In the parking conditions, the PPC stated there needed to be a valid permit to park but there was no way to acquire one. In the Defendants opinion, if it was not possible to park there for anyone without a valid permit, it should have been stated in a different way so it was clearly understood that parking was forbidden for those who could not have any way of acquiring a valid permit and/or were not part of the nearby residential complex.

    ii.         In issuing the PCN, the claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Under the conditions that have to be met for the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Paragraph 4), Paragraph 7(2)(f) states that the notice to the keeper must 'specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.' The claimant has failed to specify the period of parking. The PCN states a time of 20:29, which is not a period of time. [For Forumites: they only state ‘observed time’ and ‘time of issue’ so hopefully I am right]

   iii.         The photographic evidence of the front of a vehicle windscreen, on the PPC's Formal demand letter, does not clearly show that the photo in question is of the Defendants vehicle. There are no identifying features in this photo that suggest it is of the Defendants vehicle, such as a number plate or vin number.

   iv.         The photographic evidence provided shows the vehicle situated in an area with no clear marked bays; therefore, it has not been made clear and obvious where the claimant constitutes where drivers are made liable for parking charges.

Thanks!

KeithP

I think you need to include a few words in there about the Claimant's failure to abide by POFA paras 13 and 14 which in turn means that they have failed to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

D_P_Dance

Which means that if they take this to court they are fubared

Coupon-mad

Well they aren’t, if the Judge asks who was driving but that bridge can be crossed if it happens.

Don’t use the forum only acronym ‘PPC’!

Daiapolon2021

Coupon-mad said:

Well they aren’t, if the Judge asks who was driving but that bridge can be crossed if it happens.

Don’t use the forum only acronym ‘PPC’!

All,

Here is my revised defence with modifications. Took out 'PPC' from my defence as Coupon-mad suggested and added reference to Schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14 as KeithP suggested. 

Some questions I have, if I may:

1) I am trying to look for the appeal, but I think at the time I used the template and process as if I was the registered keeper (I thought I was but I made a mistake). Will this make a difference in the defence I need to do or I am past that? When they replied to me in writing they 'requested my details to the DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle'. I suppose they don't know who was driving as they asked for me to tell them that.

2) At point ii in my defence I reference that the PPC in the PCN gives an ‘observed time’ and ‘time of issue’ so hopefully I am right in raising the fact there is no parking period?

Here is my revised defence. All comments welcome.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  To the Defendant’s best knowledge:

      i.         In the parking conditions, the Claimant stated there needed to be a valid permit to park but there was no way to acquire one. In the Defendants opinion, if it was not possible to park there for anyone without a valid permit, it should have been stated in a different way so it was clearly understood that parking was forbidden for those who could not have any way of acquiring a valid permit and/or were not part of the nearby residential complex.

    ii.         In issuing the PCN, the claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Under the conditions that have to be met for the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Paragraph 4), Paragraph 7(2)(f) states that the notice to the keeper must 'specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.' The claimant has failed to specify the period of parking. The PCN states a time of 20:29, which is not a period of time.

   iii.         The photographic evidence of the front of a vehicle windscreen, on the Claimant's Formal demand letter, does not clearly show that the photo in question is of the Defendants vehicle. There are no identifying features in this photo that suggest it is of the Defendants vehicle, such as a number plate or vin number.

   iv.         The photographic evidence provided shows the vehicle situated in an area with no clear marked bays; therefore, it has not been made clear and obvious where the claimant constitutes where drivers are made liable for parking charges.

     v.         The Claimant also failed to abide by Schedule 4 in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Thanks for all the support!