County Court Fine PLEASE HELP

Mollyc977

Fruitcake said:

Yer tiz. Image capture date, December 2021. Spot how easy it is to read the Ts and Cs on the signs.


I suggest you defend as keeper and one of two drivers, but deny liability.

This is interesting. One person drove in, and a different one drove out. With whom was the parking contract made?
When did the first driver's contract with the PPC end, and the second begin? 
The first driver would have entered into a contract with the PPC when they arrived, but at the point where they were no longer capable of being the driver due to (effectively) a medical issue, then the second driver would have taken over responsibility of adhering to the contract. 

Add in frustration of contract because driver one became incapacitated, and you have the basics of your para 3 in my opinion.

ThanIs for this - really helpful. When I initially appealed by claim their argument was that regardless of the situation I still had time to go and purchase another ticket for the overstay. I suppose they have a point but I still feel like this is completely unjust given the situation! I will start to compile together my defence and hopefully win

Fruitcake

I would suggest that you would have had difficulty purchasing another ticket when you could no longer see properly, and that you had in any case taken reasonable steps to remedy the situation by leaving as soon as it was practical and safe to do so.
Your priority at the time was to ensure that you would be able to actually leave the site, and it is possible that the insurance office could have been closed by the time you had gone all the way back to the car park to pay for another ticket, which would have prevented you from leaving the site at all.

In addition, the signage is inadequate in my opinion. There is a big sign on the left that would draw the driver's eye (no pun intended ... well ...  maybe) detailing the tariffs, with a cluttered sign on the right that you wouldn't notice if you were reading the tariff board that does not include Ts and Cs of what would happen if you failed to pay, or overstayed. I would suggest that the other sign(s) did not adequately bring the Ts and Cs to the attention of the driver at the material time.

Forget what the PPC says. The only person you need to convince is the judge.

Fruitcake

Why do you believe the land is under statutory control?

Bearing in mind that parking companies monitor this forum, and have been known to take screenshots of information posted, is what you have stated in paragraph 2 true, because that is not what you implied in your first post?

You haven't answered an earlier question about whether the PPC knows the identity of the driver. If they do, then not relevant land and the PoFA are irrelevant.

Para 3 and your opening post both imply the defendant was the first driver. In your opening post you suggested you knew the identity of the driver.

Was it dark at 16,34 on the date of the alleged event? If not, then lack of illumination of signs is irrelevant.

If the PPC has a screengrab of your opening post and shows it to a judge, what do you think they might surmise?

You do not appear to have used any of the comments I made about the change of driver and therefore the question about who would be liable for an overstay, nor the comments I made about the signs.

KeithP

I would suggest that you paragraph 3 all but tells the court that the Defendant parked the vehicle and someone else drove it out of the car park.
It does not matter who drove the vehicle out of the car park - the contract to park, if indeed there was one, was agreed by the driver who parked the car.

Mollyc977

Fruitcake said:

Why do you believe the land is under statutory control?

Bearing in mind that parking companies monitor this forum, and have been known to take screenshots of information posted, is what you have stated in paragraph 2 true, because that is not what you implied in your first post?

You haven't answered an earlier question about whether the PPC knows the identity of the driver. If they do, then not relevant land and the PoFA are irrelevant.

Para 3 and your opening post both imply the defendant was the first driver. In your opening post you suggested you knew the identity of the driver.

Was it dark at 16,34 on the date of the alleged event? If not, then lack of illumination of signs is irrelevant.

If the PPC has a screengrab of your opening post and shows it to a judge, what do you think they might surmise?

You do not appear to have used any of the comments I made about the change of driver and therefore the question about who would be liable for an overstay, nor the comments I made about the signs.

Hi, thanks for you quick reply.

I thought incorporated both of the comments you suggested suggested within my defence. I am really confused by all of this so apologies for any discrepancies. When I initially appealed I told the company that i was not the driver and the driver was in fact my partner. I thought I could keep his identity anonymous in my defence .

So my best bet is mentioning more about the signage and who would be liable for the overstay?

Mollyc977

I have amended - do I need to add more

Summary of evidence requested from the Claimant:

1.1 Proof of authorisation from the landowner for the operator to act as creditor at the car park with signatures from both parties.

1.2 Copies of all photographs taken of the vehicle on 30/05/2021

1.3 Detailed and contextual photographs of all signage at the car park at 30/05/2021

1.4 Detailed calculations justifying how the additional £60 costs, which have been added to the original £100 claim, were arrived at, and where these are referred to in the Contract.

1.5 Provide evidence that the car was parked for the period claimed, and not just in the car park.

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. At the time of the alleged event the Defendant was on holiday with her family. It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however, liability is denied as she was one of two drivers of the date of the alleged offence. 

2.1 When the defendant parked the vehicle in this car park the defendant did not see any clear signage as the the sign on the left of the entrance, whilst partially conforming to BPA requirements, is positioned on the passenger side of the car and would not be seen when approaching from either direction even in daylight. The sign on the right hand side of the entrance does not appear to be facing the road and therefore the driver. It is positioned inside the entrance facing west so a driver approaching from the east might easily fail to notice it.

is this part irrelevant? 2.2.    In addition, the driver-liability-only PCN which was issued, fails to comply with POFA 2012 Paragraph 9 Schedule 4, notably, the absence of 9(2)(f), warning about the recipient of the letter becoming liable in law. A registered keeper cannot be lawfully assumed to be the driver on private land - if that had been possible then the POFA would not have been needed at all in 2012 - and this was confirmed by POPLA Lead Adjudicator and parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, in his notes about keeper liability misunderstandings, in the POPLA Annual Report 2015.

3. Aforementioned, the defendant visited the land in question during a family holiday. The defendant entered the land at 16:34 and visited the beach. Upon the arrival back the vehicle in question, the defendant was incapacitated and could no longer legally drive the vehicle due to a medical issue. The said medical issue meant that the defendant had a loss of vision and thus would have had difficulty purchasing another ticket. As the keeper of the vehicle, the defendant took all reasonable steps to remedy the situation by leaving the land as soon as it was safely possible to do. The driver of the vehicle when the leaving the car park is not the same driver that entered into the contract with SIP parking therefore it would be difficult to distinguish when the second driver would have taken over responsibility of adhering to the contract.

KeithP

You paragraph 2.1 now confirms who was the driver.

That means that POFA compliance is irrelevant, which in turn means that you paragraph 2.2 is not needed at all.

The last sentence of your paragraph 3 is also superfluous. As I said earlier, it matters not who drove the vehicle out of the car park - it is the driver at the time of entering the car park that allegedly agreed a contract to park.

Mollyc977

KeithP said:

You paragraph 2.1 now confirms who was the driver.

That means that POFA compliance is irrelevant, which in turn means that you paragraph 2.2 is not needed at all.

The last sentence of your paragraph 3 is also superfluous. As I said earlier, it matters not who drove the vehicle out of the car park - it is the driver at the time of entering the car park that allegedly agreed a contract to park.

Thanks KeithP.

I have now removed paragraph 2.2 and the last sentence of paragraph 3. My defence now seems very sparse and I’m not actually sure if what I have said is solid enough? My main points are: 1. Medical issue meaning I could not purchase a new ticket as I could not see 2. Poor signage 

I am sorry for being so dense but I feel like I am not getting anywhere with my defence as I find it so difficult to actually put this into words. 

Coupon-mad

They seem like decent facts to me. Say who parked, say what happened and say why you think no contract was agreed (crap signs). That is the basis of most defences. 

It is hardly 'sparse' given all the rest of the stuff the template defence includes for you!

None of this is needed, as the template defence already covers it all and a defence is not a place to ask for evidence (you will get it later, at WS stage):

Summary of evidence requested from the Claimant:

1.1 Proof of authorisation from the landowner for the operator to act as creditor at the car park with signatures from both parties.

1.2 Copies of all photographs taken of the vehicle on 30/05/2021

1.3 Detailed and contextual photographs of all signage at the car park at 30/05/2021

1.4 Detailed calculations justifying how the additional £60 costs, which have been added to the original £100 claim, were arrived at, and where these are referred to in the Contract.

1.5 Provide evidence that the car was parked for the period claimed, and not just in the car park.

Mollyc977

Hi all,

Received questionnaire today and followed the advice from the newbies post, however, it does not mention section D1 as below:

Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without hearing, I.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision and giving a note of reasons for that decision?

if no, please state why not. 

Presuming I answer yes to this question but please can someone advise?

Once completed so I send to courts and parking firm?