MOTO Parking fine

egan369

Half_way said:

Thank you for your reply, however as principal you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents.
As stated previously the driver was tired and following government and motoring organisations advice.

Shall I reply using the above? Even though the he last email I received (from Nadia) was on the 27/10/21 

egan369

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 

3.  The Defendant did not see any signs entering the service station due to focusing on the route directions on the tarmac. Also no signs were seen from the direct route across the car park to the facilities. The Defendant followed the advice of the motorway signs “Tiredness can kill, Take a break”. The Driver was extremely tired and pulled into the services for a sleep so he could safely carry on the journey ahead, for all persons in the vehicle and all other road users. The case Bowden Vs Parking eye is similar to the Defendants case in which an minimum over stay for the safety of himself and other road uses occurs.

Adjusted my defence as advised by redx and coupon mad is there anything else I need to/ could add? 

Looking to sent it in this week. 

Thanks

Half_way

egan369 said:

Half_way said:

Thank you for your reply, however as principal you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents.
As stated previously the driver was tired and following government and motoring organisations advice.

Shall I reply using the above? Even though the he last email I received (from Nadia) was on the 27/10/21 

Theres nothing to be lost in trying - the stuff i post here is to give an idea on what to send , and in most cases should be looked at to see what it means ( as most stuff ) and possibly re-typed to remove gramatical errors typos and so on .

Principal liabe for the actions of its agent(s)

 This means if you own a car park and hire, or allow a third party onto your car park to "monitor" it on your behalf you are jointly liable for the actions of the third party

 

Coupon-mad

Add in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

egan369

Half_way said:

egan369 said:

Half_way said:

Thank you for your reply, however as principal you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents.
As stated previously the driver was tired and following government and motoring organisations advice.

Shall I reply using the above? Even though the he last email I received (from Nadia) was on the 27/10/21 

Theres nothing to be lost in trying - the stuff i post here is to give an idea on what to send , and in most cases should be looked at to see what it means ( as most stuff ) and possibly re-typed to remove gramatical errors typos and so on .

Principal liabe for the actions of its agent(s)

 This means if you own a car park and hire, or allow a third party onto your car park to "monitor" it on your behalf you are jointly liable for the actions of the third party

 

Thank you for explaining that halfway much appreciated! 😁 I will send them an email. 

egan369

Coupon-mad said:

Add in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you I hadn’t even heard the news! I’ve had a read online and I’ve added the following to the end of my #3 paragraph on my defence.

In parking cases the government have recently stated that excessive debt recovery fees are to be banned and the cap on parking fines to be reduced by 50% in most cases. 

Is this ok? 

Redx

egan369 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Add in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you I hadn’t even heard the news! I’ve had a read online and I’ve added the following to the end of my #3 paragraph on my defence.

In parking cases the government have recently stated that excessive debt recovery fees are to be banned and the cap on parking fines to be reduced by 50% in most cases. 

Is this ok? 

I would be copying the paragraph posted today by member Bargepole , not what you have written 😜😜👍👍

egan369

Thanks for the advice @Redx
So I’ve added the following below as the new paragraph #6 and re numbered the paragraphs after to follow in the correct order (as seen on another thread) 

6.       The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.' In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of £70 , described as 'debt recovery fee', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

Wanted to have it on this thread incase someone is following it for help in the future! 

egan369

Just an update message received “Notice of proposed Allocation to the small claims track” letter and N180 form 

I’m filling out the N180 using the advice from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

Assuming this is all still correct (6years later) ? 

Thanks 

Le_Kirk

Still current advice.  If you are unsure check the NEWBIE sticky second post under the red banner Know what you must do and by when!