County Court Claim Issue Date 13th May '22

Umkomaas

Billy_Bamford said:

Billy_Bamford said:

Umkomaas said:

 Can you confirm whether the NtK was PoFA compliant or not?

Not sure, here's a snippet...

The paragraph that commences 'If, after a period of 28 days ..... ' would pass the test of being PoFA compliant. But the the following paragraph containing the 42 days bit does confuse the matter. I'm not sure what the right answer is there, but I'd err on the side of saying it's compliant - maybe others might comment. 

Just as a long shot, can you give us the date of the parking event and the Date of Issue shown on the first letter (the NtK) you received from UKPC. 

Coupon-mad

You should still deny being the driver if you were not. This is a straightforward fact and the Judge wants to know.

Billy_Bamford

Umkomaas said:

Just as a long shot, can you give us the date of the parking event and the Date of Issue shown on the first letter (the NtK) you received from UKPC. 

Here's the first NtK...

Billy_Bamford

Coupon-mad said:

You should still deny being the driver if you were not. This is a straightforward fact and the Judge wants to know.

So, would this be acceptable?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but denies being the Driver at the time of the charges. 

2 i) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ set out in schedule 4.

KeithP

Billy_Bamford said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but denies being the Driver at the time of the charges. 

I would change the last few words there to "...at the time of the alleged parking event".

Coupon-mad

Billy_Bamford said:

Coupon-mad said:

You should still deny being the driver if you were not. This is a straightforward fact and the Judge wants to know.

So, would this be acceptable?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but denies being the Driver at the time of the charges. 

2 i) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ set out in schedule 4.

Why are there no other facts? This isn't a defence yet. Unless there is a paragraph 3 you've not shown here.  What does that say?

The Template Defence thread says to use para 3 to say what you know (or don't know) about the car park and why the car was there, or likely to be authorised. 

Please re-read what I coach people to put, as shown in the Template Defence itself.

1505grandad

"It is therefore disputed that the Defendant overstayed the maximum grace period at all. "

Careful what you state Court documents.

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

"It is therefore disputed that the Defendant overstayed the maximum grace period at all. "

Careful what you state Court documents.

Indeed, and here:

The Defendant states that at no point did the Driver see any clear, prominent and lit signs showing the contractual arrangements near the bay used. There was also no signage easily visible between the bay used and the venue. The Defendant therefore does not agree that any form of contractual relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant that would render the Claimants charges valid.

All of the above suggests that the Defendant was in fact driving.  That's fine.

But what the OP must not do (and this is clearly warned about in the Template Defence thread) is to say:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but denies being the Driver at the time of the charges. 

That's not true, is it? 

If we are right, do NOT deny driving. 

The Template Defence tells you this.  It's a court submission = only the truth!

Coupon-mad

After all, it wasn't a Pay and Display car park - there were no machines outside to pay at, only some keypad within the venue to enter your VRN, which you'll only become aware of once you go indoors.

OK.

Your defence is good and yes, most cases are pretty much all about the signs and whether they were prominent and 'bound to be seen'.

The courts will not blame your wife for not seeing inconspicuous boards in a no -tariff car park she was legitimately using as a patron. 

Did you miss the fact that the NEWBIES thread 2nd post section about defence wording has a (slightly different but similar facts) ParkingEye appeal example about exactly this 'hidden ipad' scenario and how to word it?

Have you clearly denied being the driver in para 2 and stated the Defendant was at work?

Billy_Bamford

Coupon-mad said:

After all, it wasn't a Pay and Display car park - there were no machines outside to pay at, only some keypad within the venue to enter your VRN, which you'll only become aware of once you go indoors.

Did you miss the fact that the NEWBIES thread 2nd post section about defence wording has a (slightly different but similar facts) ParkingEye appeal example about exactly this 'hidden ipad' scenario and how to word it?

I'll refresh my memory by reading up on it again once I'm home from work and I'll post my edited defence (hopefully for the last time!). Thanks for your guidance so far. 👍