County Court Claim Form

Coupon-mad

The fact i have added in stuff that isnt correThe fact i have added in stuff that isn't correct is clearly going to go massively against me and i dont expect to win this case now.

I doubt their rep will even notice. That is very minor.  Being late with your WS is the dodgy issue but hope it isn't mentioned...

You can still refer to the new Code of Practice at the hearing and the ban on debt recovery fake fees, which ends the debate on that rogue practice once and for all.  Whilst legislation is not retrospective, the message from the Government lawyers who've clearly looked at it all, is a huge steer for the courts.  Say so...

Potts_123

'The Contravention was documented and recorded at the above car park on the and a Parking Charge Notice was either affixed to the vehicle or issued through the post but remains unpaid. The period of parking to which this Notice relates is the period that immediately precedes the contravention time referred to above.'

can someone tell me whether this statement is complying with POFA please, i know they have to state the period in which the car was parked, but do they have to state actual times or is 'contravention time' and the statement above enough for them to have complied?

Umkomaas

Potts_123 said:

'The Contravention was documented and recorded at the above car park on the and a Parking Charge Notice was either affixed to the vehicle or issued through the post but remains unpaid. The period of parking to which this Notice relates is the period that immediately precedes the contravention time referred to above.'

can someone tell me whether this statement is complying with POFA please, i know they have to state the period in which the car was parked, but do they have to state actual times or is 'contravention time' and the statement above enough for them to have complied?

Some of it is outside the scope of PoFA, that which is doesn't comply. That said none of VCS NtKs comply with PoFA, so no need to further concern yourself about it.

Potts_123

Potts_123 said:

i have indeed now i read it, thank you.

should i delete #4 which says

'It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in terms of 'adequate notice' of the parking charge on plentiful and prominent signs, and in terms of the wording of their Notice to Keeper which fails to state the correct period and warning about liability.  The Claimant appears to be relying on presumption that the registered keeper was driving but on private land there is no such lawful presumption and the Defendant was not driving.'

as now looking at the photos, the driver is parked directly in front of one sign that is eye level, and another close by which is clearly visible. The wording on the NTK also appears to be fine, can someone confirm this for me? 

I have my hearing tomorrow and going off of what everyone has said on here, it seems like POFA is my best chance of winning this. However, i am struggling to get my head around it and fully understanding it, will i be questioned on why i think the PPC have not complied with POFA, or should the judge be content with what is in my defence and witness statement?

I am having a massive panic up on having to elaborate on any of the legal side of things tomorrow. 

Potts_123

This claim was successfully defended today, thank you to all for your input, I wouldn't have even known where to start without your help!!

D_P_Dance

Can yu please post more details of your win.

Potts_123

So the judge decided to throw it out based on the fact that in their witness statement they had photos of my car parked in front of one of their signs, but the photo wasn't clear enough to read the words on the sign, other than the part in the largest font which read 'Authorised Parking Only.' 
They had included a close up of a sign that they say was the same as the one the car was parked in front of, but not the exact one,  the judge was not happy that there wasn't a photo with the car and sign clearly visible in the same photo.
The judge seemed to be on my side from the very start if i'm being honest, it seemed like, from what i could make out, that he wasn't happy that the claimants witness didn't fully comply with CPR 27.9
At the end of his witness statement, he merely stated that he may not be able to attend and to request the court to decide this claim in his absence.
The rep seemed like he was on the back foot from the start

Umkomaas

@Potts_123 - Well done, nice win against a not so nice claimant. 👍

Could you tell us at which court your hearing was held and the name of the Judge please. It helps us build a picture of those courts/Judges who have private parking issues well sussed out.