Unexpected CCJ

B789

18. The Defendant was offered multiple opportunities to explain that they were not the driver of the vehicle. However, I am instructed they did not do so.

Errr... the obligation is on the Claimant to prove that they were the driver.

Johnersh

@B789 that is true for claims brought against the driver.

However, the point that the claimant makes (badly) is that the o/p failed to transfer liability to anyone else. The WS also makes clear that pofa is relied upon. Even if the correct driver is identified later, after commencement of proceedings, that does not mean that a claim against the RK must fail. Indeed, pofa states that the entitlement to pursue the RK is only where the driver is not named pre-proceedings. No driver named? Then it's game on for the claimant. 

If there's an obviously overstay and all procedures have correctly been followed, the best gains are likely to be found in challenging the uplifts. It may require careful thought. 

Coupon-mad

Challenging uplifts - yes - and always the signage.

Especially, in many cases, a lack of entrance signs which means the driver is never 'on notice' that the land is managed and cannot be blamed for not seeing (seeking out) non-prominent terms within.

verdomde

I'll try get the signage pics uploaded asap, there is one on a lamppost as you go in

verdomde

Ok, have uploaded all to dropox
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b7xl8wn1q2ijjn1/witness_doc.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

Images of signs at the site (UKPC's own exhibits/evidence) are all unreadable in daylight. The charge for failing to comply is absent from the signs. The claimant is put to strict proof that the charge for breaching the contract was sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist by the signs on site. All the signs at the site are in "landscape" format.

Images of signs in the WS are stock images held on a computer. They are all in "portrait" format. 

It is averred that the stock images in the claimant's WS are not representative of the signs at the site. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

The signs at the site have six icons including a yellow one (possibly an ANPR camera icon) at the bottom right of the six. As already mentioned, all signs at the site are in "landscape" format'
The image of the sign in the landowner contract exhibit only has five icons. The yellow icon at the bottom right of the group is missing. The facsimile of the sign in the contract is in "portrait" format.
It is evident therefore that the sign in the contract is different to the signs at the site. It is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that the terms of the landowner contract are different to those displayed on the signs at the site, and therefore the terms of the landowner contract cannot be conveyed upon the motorist.

There are no images of the vehicle parked at the site.

There are no images of the signs taken at night in the same light conditions as that of the alleged event. There is no proof that the claimant's signs would have been readable at the time of the alleged event, nor that the defendant's vehicle was parked near any of the signs at the site.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Fruitcake

Ts and Cs of the Landowner contract.

Contract schedule and Ts and Cs attached or otherwise supplied comprise the whole contract.*



Parking charges in the amount of £100 reduced to £60 for early payment.

No mention of additional charges such as fake add on debt collection/admin costs, therefore they are not permitted by the landowner contract. Note the words highlighted above. *
The contract shown in the claimant's WS is the "whole contract". Adding the fake charges is outwith that contract and therefore not permitted by the landowner.

Not_A_Hope

If you had no reason to be at this site for 4 hours it looks like a classic case of a double dip. 

Perhaps you should be suggesting to the judge that it is likely a driver visited the site to shop at 18.04, left the site shortly after and then returned later (after the silly no return within 2 hours rule no-one would see in the small print on those signs). Lots of people have been caught out by PPCs for going back to a shop for a bottle of milk. 

The PPCs are supposed to look for orphan images showing the vehicle leaving and returning to site later. However that doesn’t earn them any money.

I would certainly be pointing out the ANPR photos show how dark it was and that any signs that might form the basis of a contract would be completely unreadable. Their terms and conditions can’t be read it daylight!

verdomde

Received this today  

verdomde

They want that on top of the rest?