Overstayed Parking

Stinge

How is this:

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

Having looked at the images of the sign on Google Street View the only sign I can see is some way from the road and not lit. It was also amongst other unrelated warning signs and adverts which further would have reduced its prominence.

Whilst the words ‘FREE PARKING’ are clear and in the largest font, the details of charges is in a small font, and would not be clear to the driver of a car passing them, especially at night.  The driver cannot be expected to have formed a contract given the unfairness of the sign.  The prominence and clarity of this sign falls well below those signs that have been relied on by successful claimants.

3. The claimant has added an additional 70 pounds to the alleged contract sum.  It is well established that such amounts are a penalty and are unenforceable in law.  It is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis and the defendant hopes this case is struck out as courts repeatably do in such cases.

Thanks

KeithP

Your opening post states...

Stinge said:

At no point in the SAR process or elsewhere have I identified the driver.  Is there any value in still not admitting I was the driver?

Has the Claimant complied with POFA to such an extent that they can successfully transfer any driver's liability to the keeper?

If not, then it was perhaps unwise to include this in your opening post...

Stinge said:
...if the vehicle was parked there it would likely have been at night and I don't ever recall seeing any signs.  

Also, using the words " The defendant did not see them..." in your Defence also tells the world that the Defendant was the driver.
(should be "the driver did not see them...")

All paragraphs in a Defence need a sequential number.

A Defence is traditionally written in the third person. You have slipped into the first person - by using the word 'I' - in your second unnumbered paragraph. 

Coupon-mad

And you don't need this point because the template (read it) clobbers this home already:

3. The claimant has added an additional 70 pounds to the alleged contract sum.  It is well established that such amounts are a penalty and are unenforceable in law.  It is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis and the defendant hopes this case is struck out as courts repeatably do in such cases.

Stinge

KeithP said:

Has the Claimant complied with POFA to such an extent that they can successfully transfer any driver's liability to the keeper?

I have looked at POFA and I cant see anything obvious in terms of dates and information on the NTK that makes me think its not compliant.  But I would like to check more.  Is there some guidance on POFA anywhere I can look at?

Le_Kirk

Stinge said:

I have looked at POFA and I cant see anything obvious in terms of dates and information on the NTK that makes me think its not compliant.  But I would like to check more.  Is there some guidance on POFA anywhere I can look at?

Here it is: -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

D_P_Dance

Do you think I could argue that that sign was not clear enough.  

Of course you can, that is a major deal breaker, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Stinge

Le_Kirk said:

Here it is: -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

I had a look through that.  I cant find anything in my case.  Is it worth me posting a redacted NTK so it can be reviewed?

Le_Kirk

You need to open the document to which I linked and also have your PCN to hand, then you look at the relevant part of the POFA, depending upon whether you received a NTD or a NTK (following or not a NTD) and compare them.  Does the PCN have all the points that the POFA states it should have.

Stinge

Thanks.  As I was not issued with a ticket on site, I believe section 9 is relevant.  I didn't find anything useful there.

Are there other avenues to investigate, or shall I just go with the issue of clarity of the sign in my defence?

Stinge

DCB Legal have been instructed by CP Plus to discontinue the claim.  Its a bit annoying there were allowed to do this but I hope people will read this and know that they don't need to be bullied by these scambags.

Thanks to all for all the assistance.