JLA "Stopping" Charge

Router66

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, you can use that.

Thanks Coupon-Mad...
Does this sound OK?
As the Lessee/Hirer of the vehicle in question, the Defendant was expecting to be served with a Notice to Hirer (NTH) compliant with schedule 4 sections 13 & 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant failed to serve the NTH within the required time period, or at all, and the Claimant has also failed to adhere to the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Code of Practice. Accordingly the Defendant has been denied their right to a discount for prompt payment and a right to an independent appeal against the parking charge. The Independent Appeals Service, the Claimants own appeals body, have already found in favour of an appellant when the parking company failed to comply with PoFA 2012 sections 13 & 14.      

Coupon-mad

Not 'was expecting to' because you knew nothing about it.  Change to 'should have been sent'.

Router66

Thanks Coupon Mad...
I will make the suggested change and post the defence on the forum for others in the same boat. 

Router66

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0b92grhpcxd63px/Defence Points 2&3.pdf?dl=0
Link to defence points 2&3

Coupon-mad

If you are admitting to driving then you can't use the POFA.  You are not the 'registered keeper' but you say in that draft that you are.

Router66

Thank you for responding Coupon Mad.

If the point you are referring to is:

(b) At all material times the defendant was the Registered Keeper or Driver.

I should have explained that all the text in italics refer to the points raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim. The text not in italics is the Defendants position.

Regarding PoFA...Is it the case then, that because the Claimant by-passes PoFA they are not required to send out a timely Notice to Hirer or comply with their ATA's Code of Practice? The Defendant only admitted being the driver after receiving a court claim, more than two years after the RK and keeper provided the Claimant with the correct address for service.   

Coupon-mad

I would never repeat the Claimant's position in a defence.

Bypassing POFA means there is NO law that allows hirer liability, at all.

Redx

You should bear in mind the concept of entities , where a driver may be responsible and liable , subject to a hearing in court

Owner
Registered keeper
Keeper
Hirer or lessee ( day to day keeper )
Driver

A defendant could be Some of them , most of them , or one of them , or none of them

POFA does not assist an admitted driver in any scenario

The claimant had 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to issue a PCN , making 7 months

Bylaws may apply , if it's airport land ( non relevant land for no POFA liability ) , JLA is an airport , most of which is subject to bylaws , there should be a map of their contracted area , like the Bristol one

So once the driver's identity is divulged , you can discard POFA or hirer or RK or owner liability , it's all on the driver , the alleged culprit

If the driver and the defendant are the same entity , then the defendant must defend their position as the actual driver , as the first person witness etc

Router66

Coupon-mad said:

I would never repeat the Claimant's position in a defence.

Bypassing POFA means there is NO law that allows hirer liability, at all.

...but if the hirer admits to being the driver, two years after making the Claimant aware that the Defendant is the hirer, then the Claimant is sitting pretty and the Defendant is stuffed?  

D_P_Dance

Not if signage, timing, contract, authority, etc. are not up to snuff surely.