UKPC court case from a 2016 PCN

Coupon-mad

I think you need more.

Set the scene, tell the Judge the facts to show this wasn't unauthorised parking. Why would the car have been there, why was it likely to be considered permitted or authorised?

Could it have been brief and allowed loading/unloading of belongings or books (not 'parking')?  Were their photos only taken two minutes apart?  No grace period allowed, then!

I assume that a family member of the Defendant was a student or employee at Brunel?  If the Defendant themselves was, and was likely to have been driving then DO NOT rely on the POFA and try to hide who was likely the driver.  Not a good stance unless it was likely not the Defendant.

Remove mention of NTD here, just say 'any of the Claimant's paper notices':

3.  It is disputed that any of the Claimant’s Notices to Driver (NTD) complied 

Fruitcake

Sorry, I can't make head nor tail of your link, and the location description is too vague for me to work out where the alleged event occurred.

Quantum65

It seems that Google street view doesn't let me access the private car park. Thinking back, the week of the PCN was "moving out week" for Brunel students as final exams typically finish in mid May.

I have amended the defence as follows; the new part is in a separate paragraph (for the purposes of visibility and advice from here) but I assume I would merge it into one big paragraph?:

3. It is disputed that any of the Claimant’s paper notices complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). Nowhere on the received notices does it specify the period of parking, this information is left out for all PCNs, which contradicts Sch. 4 Paragraph 7 2a, the paper notices must specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It is disputed that any of the Claimant’s Notices to Keeper (NTK) complied with POFA. Nowhere on the received notices does it specify the period of parking, this information is left out for all PCNs, which contradicts Sch. 4 Paragraph 8 2a, the NTK must specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.

The date of the alleged contravention falls on the week after final exams would have been completed at Brunel University, the landowner, therefore it is likely that the driver was loading a student’s belongings who was moving out of campus accommodation. There is a security barrier at the entrance of the car park where you must state your intention before entering; on moving out security will usually verbally agree a grace period to allow a short time to load your vehicle and pick up a student. The Claimants’ PCN did not provide evidence of an overstay beyond this grace period and only provides a single image of the vehicle.

Quantum65

Private car park is on: Cleveland Road, Uxbridge, UB8 2DP

Coupon-mad

That's good - a better defence - apart from change 'contravention' to 'event'.

I assume I would merge it into one big paragraph?

Absolutely not. It would be far too long. Just make it paragraph 4 and re-number the rest.

Quantum65

Thank you very much for the advice, super appreciated! At the moment I don't have access to the full list of images that they will rely on (as online images have expired) and I know as mentioned earlier these may come up later in the proceedings. I'm pretty confident that they didn't provide images from different time periods in the first place (and also my defence mentions the PCN doesn't have any period of parking noted) and the paper PCN itself only has the 1 image. Just wondering if I should word it differently at this stage? This is where I'm at now:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but driver is unknown due to multiple drivers and liability is denied. 

3.  It is disputed that any of the Claimant’s paper notices complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). Nowhere on the received notices does it specify the period of parking, this information is left out for all PCNs, which contradicts Sch. 4 Paragraph 7 2a, the paper notices must specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It is disputed that any of the Claimant’s Notices to Keeper (NTK) complied with POFA. Nowhere on the received notices does it specify the period of parking, this information is left out for all PCNs, which contradicts Sch. 4 Paragraph 8 2a, the NTK must specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.

4.  The date of the alleged event falls on the week after final exams would have been completed at Brunel University, the landowner, therefore it is likely that the driver was loading a student’s belongings who was moving out of campus accommodation. There is a security barrier at the entrance of the car park where you must state your intention before entering; on moving out security will usually verbally agree a grace period to allow a short time to load your vehicle and pick up a student. The Claimants’ PCN did not provide evidence of an overstay beyond this grace period and only provides a single image of the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

You could add that the Defendant also believes that the Claimant's signage does not cover loading/unloading so there can have been no breach of a 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' (POFA 2012 pre-requisites).  In fact drivers picking up students at the end of terms were entitled to rely on the alternative verbal contract offered by security staff who let the cars in.

Quantum65

Ah great idea. I've amended para 4 to include that. Do you think it's fine like that or maybe it should be mentioned in a new para 5?:

4. The date of the alleged event falls on the week after final exams would have been completed at Brunel University, the landowner, therefore it is likely that the driver was loading a student’s belongings who was moving out of campus accommodation. There is a security barrier at the entrance of the car park where you must state your intention before entering; on moving out security will usually verbally agree a grace period to allow a short time to load your vehicle and pick up a student. The Claimants’ PCN did not provide evidence of an overstay beyond this grace period and only provides a single image of the vehicle. The Defendant also believes that the Claimant's signage does not cover loading/unloading so there can have been no breach of a 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' (POFA 2012 pre-requisites).  In fact drivers picking up students at the end of terms were entitled to rely on the alternative verbal contract offered by security staff who let the cars in.

Umkomaas

At the moment I don't have access to the full list of images that they will rely on (as online images have expired) and I know as mentioned earlier these may come up later in the proceedings.

I'd take timed and dated screenshots of the 'Images Expired' message on screen.  Keep them as they might be useful at the Witness Statement stage, later in the process.

Coupon-mad

Add my bit as para 5 then re-number the rest.