unpaid PCN, court hearing letter - case CLOSED

kokolino23

Paragraphs 7 & 8 were changed

7.    A Notice to Keeper dated 28/07/2017 was sent to me and on reading it, bizarrely referred to a period of 42 days to respond (Ex 2). There is no period of '42 days' (at all, not by any calculation) set out in Schedule 4 of the POFA.  This is just one example of non-compliance with the POFA in this case.  There is also a notable absence of any evidence of a breach of a 'relevant contract/relevant obligation' and/or 'adequate notice' of the parking charge on prominent signs placed where a driver could easily read the terms. However, the Claimant did not allow me 42 days to respond.  Instead, the Claimant sent a letter (Ex 3) dated 29/08/2017 which is before 42 days had elapsed.  The Claimant's letter reduced 42 days down to 28 days and stated:

 Despite issuing a Parking Charge and writing to you previously we (UK Parking Control Ltd.) have not received payment.  As 28 days have lapsed, you, the Registered Keeper of the vehicle can be made liable for the Parking Charge. If full payment is not made within 14 days, or if we are not provided the drivers details then the charge will be passed on to our debt recovery agency.

8.    I submit that the NTK was a 'non-POFA' (only capable of driver liability) alternative version, seen in cases where a parking operator has not been able to comply with (or does not intend to rely upon) the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4.  Knowing that they used this particular wording in their NTK, by continuing to pursue a registered keeper who they know was not the driver, the Claimant would be (either by accident or design) misleading the court and this consumer, about liability under the only applicable law.

1505grandad

"It is up to you to note those last two pieces of evidence and make sure you Google and include them both as Exhibits in your later witness statement."

I believe that C-m when posting the above 2.1.2022  was referring to the following which should be stated/exhibited in WS to back up non-defendant liability due to non PoFA:-

" The Defendant submits there is no cause of action against the registered keeper and will rely on the persuasive appeal case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith and the words of expert parking law barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 about cases where 'keeper liability' cannot pass."

Coupon-mad

This is two different exhibits and you need them both:

12.    The Defendant submits there is no cause of action against the registered keeper and will rely on the persuasive appeal case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith and the words of expert parking law barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 about cases where 'keeper liability' cannot pass”. (Exhibit 11).

Excel v Smith is in the Parking Prankster's case law pages, and you must say in this WS that it is persuasive because it is a Circuit Judge's decision on appeal.

And don't quote at length from Henry Greenslade if you are exhibiting his words, just refer to the right page of the POPLA Report.

kokolino23

Booom !!!

Just received an email from DCB Legal today saying that their client has instructed them to discontinue Court proceedings and close the file (N279 Notice of Discontinuance attached as well).

Many thanks for all your help here, hopefully this will be a boost to other people to follow your advice and not to give up when they receive letters from these companies.

kokolino23

@KeithP , @Coupon-mad , @Jenni_D, @Redx , Thank you VERY much for all your help with this, really appreciated!

Same for all the forum members who kindly contributed to my case.

Coupon-mad

Yay - that's a win!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!