Highview parking County Court Claim SAR and Defense advice - reduced timeframe due to postal error!

Coupon-mad

Assuming the NTKs are already in the exhibits of the C, then the D doesn't need to include images of them at all and could just refer to them by the C's exhibit numbers.

Probably a good idea to put in Schedule 4 POFA as an exhibit even though the C has admitted they are unable to rely on it (because they don't bother with that law).  Just in case this is a Judge who doesn't quite 'get it' that there is such a thing as a non-POFA NTK.  Perfectly allowed of course - DVLA says they can use a 'driver liability' PCN route if they want - but it's a 'pre-2012 style' ticket, and incapable of invoking 'keeper liability'.

Fruitcake

With regards to the claimant's failure to comply with the BPA's CoP, remind the judge of what their WS says at paragraph 7, highlighting the word "essential".

7. In order to obtain Registered Keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency ("DVLA") my Company must be a member of an ATA. It is therefore essential for my Company to comply with the Code.

Have Tables 1 and 2 been redacted as all I can see are the headings with no other information?

Fruitcake

Para 13 refers to the driver exceeding the maximum time of 2 hours which contradicts para 22 that says the maximum parking period is 3 hours.
The claimant does not appear to know what the maximum parking time is and by how much, if at all, this time was exceeded.

Para 23 refers to claims that the defendant would/should have engaged with the appeals process further, yet no appeals are allowed after the initial 28-day period, therefore their implication is void for impossibility.

Fruitcake

Just a comment but Para 25 is an argumentum ad hominem, an argument against the person as opposed to the content of the defence.

A minor point, but Para 26 ii refers to the claim being made against the owner not the driver, yet the DVLA does not hold owner details.
They actually mention earlier that they applied to the DVLA to obtain the owner's details.

Grizebeck

Is it video/telephone or f2f hearing?
If f2f please private message me the court name i may be able to assist if your local.

Fruitcake

There is no contract with or flowing from the landowner to the claimant, merely a statement from a random person purporting to be acting for the landowner. 

The statement from Tim Pople is not dated, nor is his signature dated. His position within his company, ES Coventry Limited is not given.
The statement is not on company headed notepaper nor does it carry either company's seal.
He states that the parking contract began on the 1st of January 2013, yet ES Coventry Limited was not incorporated until the 30th of September 2015, therefore the original contract, if it existed, could not have been with ES Coventry Limited.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Mr Pople has never been an officer of ES Coventry Limited nor a person with significant control and therefore does not have explicit or implied authority as defined by Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 to sign a contract, nor are there signatories from both companies.
His statement has not been properly executed as a document in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 as it has not been signed by two authorised persons from each party (company)

Grizebeck

Well spotted @Fruitcake esp with the incorporation dates

Fruitcake

The statement from Tim PoPLE does not give express permission for the claimant to issue court proceedings. 

The images of signs have not been date stamped. The claimant is put to strict proof that they were present at the material time.

1505grandad

Re my observations on your previous draft the following do not appear to have been actioned in the latest WS version:-

"There are several typos re:-

"Code of Practi(s)e"  -  should be (c).   -   there are 3 typos with (s).  -  control + f (practise) will find them

Para 55  -  is (this) correct?  -  (full sentence)  -"... This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the (£100) parking charge is not designed to more than cover."   -   according to the charge notice you are exhibiting the parking charge amount is £85 not the £100 you say  -  hence the original query.

Umkomaas

@Fruitcake - corker.  Great stuff. 👍