Received a Claim Form for an ANPR "fine" for £260.00, and don't think there's much of a defense?

mylampisonthetable

One of the phrases in the template defence is this: "Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case)."

I'm 80% certain, to the best of my knowledge (SAR pending) that they've complied with the POFA procedures. Should I remove the text in brackets, or reword it, or is there reasonable cause to believe the claimant has not complied and therefore it should stay in?

Coupon-mad

If you read this year's POPLA Decisions sticky thread from the end, backwards (NOT the old posts at the start), you will find that Popla don't think PP comply with the POFA.

mylampisonthetable

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

When I email the defence, will it be acceptable for me to sign it using MS Paint, rather than print it out and sign it and scan it (which I cannot do)?

mylampisonthetable

And as I work to complete my understanding of what I am sending, can someone please explain this one to me: "(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5 "

Umkomaas

mylampisonthetable said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

When I email the defence, will it be acceptable for me to sign it using MS Paint, rather than print it out and sign it and scan it (which I cannot do)?

Place your signature on a blank sheet of white paper, take a photo of it, save it, then insert as a picture between your Statement of Truth and your name at the bottom. Pinch or stretch to fit.

Le_Kirk

mylampisonthetable said:

And as I work to complete my understanding of what I am sending, can someone please explain this one to me: "(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5 "

Sometimes claimants decide that they might lose at a hearing and, rather than pay the hearing fee (plus further solicitor costs), they will discontinue "at the last minute".  In this case you want the hearing to continue as a costs hearing where you claim the costs that you have submitted on your summary costs assessment. 

mylampisonthetable

OK here is my defence ready for review before I submit it in a few days. Please let me know if any adjustments are needed!

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3a. The signage displayed at the entrance of Parc Tawe North was inadequate, poorly placed, and considering the tiny font size used: unreadable. Considering the limited time available to read the signage while driving into the car park, no reasonable person could be expected to read and understand the signage.

3b. After entry the remaining signs were also inadequate. Many vehicles could park out of sight of them. In this case, the driver was not made aware of the terms and conditions and therefore could not agree to them.

3c. Parc Tawe has two car parks for the same retail site, with no real demarcation between them. A reasonable person would assume that they were the same. However, each of the car parks has its own set of conditions and enforcement, which can easily lead to confusion.

3d. There was ambiguity between the free period in the two car parks, and the other car park had a much longer free period.

3e. Any text suggesting the use of ANPR is either completely absent or inconspicuous. Of the two car parks, it is believed that only Parc Tawe North made use of ANPR at the time.

3f. The Claimant should demonstrate full compliance with the keeper liability requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, should the Claimant want to hold the keeper liable.

3g. When the new Code of Practise comes into effect, the original PCN charge would have been £25.00. It is noted that this would not be retrospective, however the CoP demonstrates that the Claimant’s charges are substantially inflated. Even if a contractual agreement was made, it is not one that would permit Premier Park Limited to increase the charges on an arbitrary basis.

Umkomaas

Separate paragraph number, rather than 3a, 3b, 3c etc, 3, 4, 5 .....

Then renumber the standard template paragraphs to follow sequentially. 

Coupon-mad

Get rid of 3g, it actually detracts from your argument.

You have not said in #2 'and driver' or alternatively, that you were not the driver, or that it is so long ago and no PCN was found (if true) so the driver on that day is unknown due to family members being insured.  Or whether you appealed?  Or whether you are relying on 'non-POFAness' and were just the keeper?

mylampisonthetable

Is there any benefit to witholding the identity of the driver in the defence? There's a lot of advice on this forum to withhold it if possible at various stages of the ticketing process. However, I can see why it might no longer make sense - but can an admission here be beneficial to the claimant?