Parking Charge Notice Received from 4 years ago!!!

Fruitcake

Waqy1 said:

Fruitcake said:

It is never too late to get a landowner cancellation.

In future, never, ever 'phone an unregulated private parking company, or any of their agents.

Para 2 of the template is easy. You admit to being the keeper but liability is denied. If you don't know who was driving, you say so. If you know it wasn't you, you say so.

Para 3 should explain the type of car park (residential, pay and display, part of a retail park etcetera, and what happened, or in the alternative, the keeper cannot be expected to recall what happened on an unremarkable day X years ago. 
Have a look at other threads to see what other posters have said. Stick a pin in the threads and you will find half of them are court cases.

Visit the site if you can and get photos of the area and signage. Have a look at Google Streetview to see if there are any historic images that may be of use.

Tried to make some calls to find out who the landowner is and it turns out the islamic centre seem to have passed on the rights of the car park to a parking company called creative car parks so its a really weird one as I thought the islamic centre would have the power to cancel it but he told me to call the creative car parks in the morning so I'll just take it from there I suppose. Been a massive help cheers!

As I said previously, never, ever 'phone a parking company or any of their agents. Creative Car Park is a trading name of Civil Enforcement Ltd. In other words, they are not the landowner.

I suggest you write to, or email the head of the Islamic Centre and ask them to instruct their contractor to cancel.

As far as I can tell from GSV images, the car park appears to be at 422 and possibly 424 Coventry Road, although the entrance is off Watt's Road.
426 - 428 is the Islamic Centre complex, with no parking available at all.
You should be highlighting this discrepancy, stating that there is no car park at the location stated on either the PCN or the claim form.

The claim is vague and fails to identify the specific location where the alleged event occurred. The address on the NTK is a building complex that does not include a car park. 

As for the car park across the road, you can just make out a couple of signs from August 2018 that look absolutely useless. If you can visit the site, you should (on foot) and take photos then compare them with the images from GSV. 

Your defence should be in the third person, and not use words like, you, me, or I, but instead use keeper, driver, claimant, defendant.

Waqy1

Fruitcake said:

Waqy1 said:

Fruitcake said:

It is never too late to get a landowner cancellation.

In future, never, ever 'phone an unregulated private parking company, or any of their agents.

Para 2 of the template is easy. You admit to being the keeper but liability is denied. If you don't know who was driving, you say so. If you know it wasn't you, you say so.

Para 3 should explain the type of car park (residential, pay and display, part of a retail park etcetera, and what happened, or in the alternative, the keeper cannot be expected to recall what happened on an unremarkable day X years ago. 
Have a look at other threads to see what other posters have said. Stick a pin in the threads and you will find half of them are court cases.

Visit the site if you can and get photos of the area and signage. Have a look at Google Streetview to see if there are any historic images that may be of use.

Tried to make some calls to find out who the landowner is and it turns out the islamic centre seem to have passed on the rights of the car park to a parking company called creative car parks so its a really weird one as I thought the islamic centre would have the power to cancel it but he told me to call the creative car parks in the morning so I'll just take it from there I suppose. Been a massive help cheers!

As I said previously, never, ever 'phone a parking company or any of their agents. Creative Car Park is a trading name of Civil Enforcement Ltd. In other words, they are not the landowner.

I suggest you write to, or email the head of the Islamic Centre and ask them to instruct their contractor to cancel.

As far as I can tell from GSV images, the car park appears to be at 422 and possibly 424 Coventry Road, although the entrance is off Watt's Road.
426 - 428 is the Islamic Centre complex, with no parking available at all.
You should be highlighting this discrepancy, stating that there is no car park at the location stated on either the PCN or the claim form.

The claim is vague and fails to identify the specific location where the alleged event occurred. The address on the NTK is a building complex that does not include a car park. 

As for the car park across the road, you can just make out a couple of signs from August 2018 that look absolutely useless. If you can visit the site, you should (on foot) and take photos then compare them with the images from GSV. 

Your defence should be in the third person, and not use words like, you, me, or I, but instead use keeper, driver, claimant, defendant.

I have a call scheduled with them at 2. Not sure what I am going to say but I'll be doing their head in for sure lol. Managed to get a visit to the site and take some pictures and its not anymore helpful then the ones on google streetview.  I've added the above into my defence and struggling to find where to send it. It says in posts by KeithP but not sure where? 

New defence: 

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

3. The keeper cannot recall what happened on an insignificant day 4 years prior. The duration listed on the PCN was less than 15 minutes and the keeper used Google Maps Street View to get the layout of the car park and still has no recollection of ever parking there. Upon checking the maps it is hard to determine what kind of parking situation it is. As seen from Google Maps Street View, signs seem to be on a large pole so if you don’t break your neck looking up they can be easily missed. The images provided on the PCN by the Claimant only show two zoomed in images of the front and rear number plate of the vehicle in question and no clear view of where the vehicle was actually parked.
From checking the Street View images, the car park appears to be at 422 and possibly 424 Coventry Road, although the entrance is off Watt's Road. 426 - 428 is the Islamic Centre complex, with no parking available at all. Therefore there is no car park at the location stated in the PCN and on the claim form it is only listed as ‘Islamic Place of Worship’ which is no help.
The claim is therefore vague and fails to identify the specific location where the alleged event occurred. The address on the PCN is a building complex that does not include a car park. 
As for the car park across the road, you can just make out a couple of signs from August 2018 that look absolutely useless.

Waqy1

I've taken some pictures of the car park today (on foot) and careful where i parked 

Coupon-mad

The info about the first 12 steps is in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

KeithP

Waqy1 said:

Fruitcake said:

Waqy1 said:

Fruitcake said:

It is never too late to get a landowner cancellation.

In future, never, ever 'phone an unregulated private parking company, or any of their agents.

Para 2 of the template is easy. You admit to being the keeper but liability is denied. If you don't know who was driving, you say so. If you know it wasn't you, you say so.

Para 3 should explain the type of car park (residential, pay and display, part of a retail park etcetera, and what happened, or in the alternative, the keeper cannot be expected to recall what happened on an unremarkable day X years ago. 
Have a look at other threads to see what other posters have said. Stick a pin in the threads and you will find half of them are court cases.

Visit the site if you can and get photos of the area and signage. Have a look at Google Streetview to see if there are any historic images that may be of use.

Tried to make some calls to find out who the landowner is and it turns out the islamic centre seem to have passed on the rights of the car park to a parking company called creative car parks so its a really weird one as I thought the islamic centre would have the power to cancel it but he told me to call the creative car parks in the morning so I'll just take it from there I suppose. Been a massive help cheers!

As I said previously, never, ever 'phone a parking company or any of their agents. Creative Car Park is a trading name of Civil Enforcement Ltd. In other words, they are not the landowner.

I suggest you write to, or email the head of the Islamic Centre and ask them to instruct their contractor to cancel.

As far as I can tell from GSV images, the car park appears to be at 422 and possibly 424 Coventry Road, although the entrance is off Watt's Road.
426 - 428 is the Islamic Centre complex, with no parking available at all.
You should be highlighting this discrepancy, stating that there is no car park at the location stated on either the PCN or the claim form.

The claim is vague and fails to identify the specific location where the alleged event occurred. The address on the NTK is a building complex that does not include a car park. 

As for the car park across the road, you can just make out a couple of signs from August 2018 that look absolutely useless. If you can visit the site, you should (on foot) and take photos then compare them with the images from GSV. 

Your defence should be in the third person, and not use words like, you, me, or I, but instead use keeper, driver, claimant, defendant.

I've added the above into my defence and struggling to find where to send it. It says in posts by KeithP but not sure where? 

Well, yesterday I wrote on your thread...

and just above that line you have read in the NEWBIES thread it says...

That template defence thread was surely enough?

Fruitcake

I'll let others comment, but the point I was trying to make was that there is no car park at the address given on the NTK, and there is no address at all on the claim form. For the claimant to hold a vehicle keeper liable they must issue a NTK that complies with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012. This includes stating The Relevant Land where the alleged event took place.
The NTK does not give this information and therefore in my opinion is not capable of holding the keeper liable.
In addition, the claim is vague and fails to provide any specific information about the location. An Islamic place of worship could have been anywhere in the country.

I don't know if it would be better to mention the car park situated at a different location or not. It is not mentioned in the NTK or the claim form. The sign says the car park off Watts Road belongs to the Unity Centre, but at the time your PCN was issued, the Unity Centre did not exist at the location specified on the NTK.

Waqy1

Fruitcake said:

I'll let others comment, but the point I was trying to make was that there is no car park at the address given on the NTK, and there is no address at all on the claim form. For the claimant to hold a vehicle keeper liable they must issue a NTK that complies with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012. This includes stating The Relevant Land where the alleged event took place.
The NTK does not give this information and therefore in my opinion is not capable of holding the keeper liable.
In addition, the claim is vague and fails to provide any specific information about the location. An Islamic place of worship could have been anywhere in the country.

I don't know if it would be better to mention the car park situated at a different location or not. It is not mentioned in the NTK or the claim form. The sign says the car park off Watts Road belongs to the Unity Centre, but at the time your PCN was issued, the Unity Centre did not exist at the location specified on the NTK.

Thank you for all your help so far. Using what you've said this is the latest version: 

3. The keeper cannot recall what happened on an insignificant day 4 years prior. The duration listed on the PCN was less than 15 minutes and the keeper used Google Maps Street View to get the layout of the car park and still has no recollection of ever parking there. Upon checking the maps it is hard to determine what kind of parking situation it is. As seen from Google Maps Street View, signs seem to be on a large pole so if you don’t break your neck looking up they can be easily missed. The images provided on the PCN by the Claimant only show two zoomed in images of the front and rear number plate of the vehicle in question and no clear view of where the vehicle was actually parked.
From checking the Street View images, the car park appears to be at 422 and possibly 424 Coventry Road, although the entrance is off Watt's Road. 426 - 428 is the Islamic Centre complex, with no parking available at all. Therefore there is no car park at the location stated in the PCN and on the claim form it is only listed as ‘Islamic Place of Worship’ which could be anywhere in the country.
The claim is therefore vague and fails to identify the specific location where the alleged event occurred. The address on the PCN is a building complex that does not include a car park. 
As for the car park across the road, you can just make out a couple of signs from August 2018 that look absolutely useless. The sign says the car park off Watts Road belongs to the Unity Centre, but on the date the PCN was issued, the Unity Centre did not exist at the location specified. For the claimant to hold a vehicle keeper liable they must issue a NTK that complies with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012. This includes stating The Relevant Land where the alleged event took place.
The NTK does not give this information and therefore in my opinion is not capable of holding the keeper liable.

Fruitcake

You are still using words like, "you". Please think about what you want to say and put it in your words rather than include things posters are advising you to do. You can't just copy and paste our comments to you.

I suggest you state that a site visit has been made and there is no car park at the location referred to on the NTK, then back it up with a comment that Google Maps Street View images from the time of the alleged event supports this, rather than just rely on GSV.
I'm still not sure if you should mention the nearby car park anyway, but if you do, I suggest you say a car park associated with the building located at 426 - 428 Coventry Road is located on Watts Road, but the claimant has not shown that the defendant's vehicle was parked there at the material time. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Waqy1

Just received a letter of cancellation from civil enforcement!! Looks like they didn’t wanna pay a court fee. Cheers guys!! 

Coupon-mad

Waqy1 said:

Just received a letter of cancellation from civil enforcement!! Looks like they didn’t wanna pay a court fee. Cheers guys!! 

And girls (I'm a lady)!

Nicely done!

ANOTHER CEL ONE BITES THE DUST!

Now you've won this battle and earned the 'virtual t-shirt', please don't disappear just yet.

A final Public Consultation is coming.

We need you; motorists need you to help us make a difference forever.  What a waste of your time this was, and why should there be such a litigation culture in parking?   It's truly horrible being pursued for £100 plus false 'fees' for no reason, by an ex-clamper aggressive firm, isn't it? 

Join us in trying to end the conniving PPC and DRA 'added fees' fuelling the court culture.  There will be one window of opportunity - the Public Consultation is anticipated very soon.

Together, we can stop the rotten parking industry from riding roughshod over the new statutory Code and the charge level caps, and otherwise bullying all motorists forever, using the regulation to gain kudos and status.

If you are not likely to pop back here every week to check, please set up email alerts for this forum and bookmark this thread (below) as we intend that one of us posts on it when the Government opens the Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

Read the latest posts there.

The PPC money-grabbers have blocked the new Code by filing for Judicial Reviews.  Stopped the declared and much welcomed parking code from February 2022, which stated that added £70 false 'DRA fee' extortion was to be banned and that parking levels would start at £50.

It's on hold. Motorists urgently need it reinstated and the ban on false 'DRA fees' confirmed, to stop the rot.

This year will be your chance to make a difference, plus any other drivers you know (family, friends) who are also fed up to the back teeth with the greedy and unscrupulous parking industry and the stranglehold they have on people.

We need high numbers of real victims to make a point of responding to this final Consultation