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

Umkomaas

mylampisonthetable said:

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?

If the PPC hasn't complied with PoFA, and the RK was (provably) not the driver on the day, then withholding the details of the driver can help in defending the claim. 

But now that proceedings have commenced, you can't offer up the driver's identity to switch liability. 

Coupon-mad

So, general rule of honest defences is this: if you know you were driving then admit it in para 2 (change to 'keeper and driver')especially if your case is all about what you saw/didn't see and how crap the signs were.

The main (more unusual) cases where people don't say who was driving at court stage, are where they really do not know (say that, if true) OR where the Claimant didn't comply with the POFA, such as Highview, CP Plus, Smart Parking cases as they never try to use the POFA and can't hold a keeper liable.

Premier Park try to use the POFA but their wording of NTKs is not great.  However, if you know you were driving and have a decent defence then admit to driving and forget the POFA complicated stuff.  Makes for an easier stance for you to verbalise at the telephone hearing later this year.

mylampisonthetable

OK, I've made the changes. Any last comments before I submit this?

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

Coupon-mad

I think 5 and 6 should be 3 and 4.

And remove 8 because once you admit to driving, they don't need the POFA.

mylampisonthetable

Thanks @Coupon-mad , I shall submit this tomorrow, (with your amendments)!

mylampisonthetable

Defence sent.

Coupon-mad

Acknowledged by email?

Jenni_D

And you updated a later defence point to reference the changed defence point number? (There's one point in the template that refers to an earlier point - if you insert additional paras then the earlier point number will have changed).

mylampisonthetable

I got a "AUTO RESPONSE DO NOT REPLY" from CCBC AQ. And yes, I did update the reference in the later part of the document.

mylampisonthetable

I have today received the DQ and an offer for telephone mediation was included in the same envelope. Would that be a good option in this case or should I proceed onwards as usual?