Excel Parking LBC following PCN after 14 days

westcoast888

Mouse007 said:

westcoast888 said:

This NTK has an issue and post date of XXXXXX. The alleged ‘contravention date’ on the NTK is XXXXX over 45 days earlier.

This suggest to me that you are thinking they sent the NTK too late after the event to hold the keeper liable.

But here you admit to being the driver.

westcoast888 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

What is your defence point flowing from these dates?

I don't think you need this bit "At this point the defendant decided to research where in fact this car park was. It was then discovered after talking to family members that the defendant had remembered travelling with family to the town of TOWNXXX. TOWNXXX is approx. 28 miles from the defendants home and the defendant hasn’t travelled there in over 20 years and as such is unfamiliar with the town."

So you think if i just use the fact that the NTK was sent after the 14 day period allowed (45 days in reality) it will be enough to win the case. The SAR shows there was no earlier PCN or NTK and i have not given the driver details to date.

The notice was issued outside the relevant period as defined under POFA 2012 section (5) which states that "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." Therefore the notice to keeper has not been issued correctly and you will not be able to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. The keeper is under no obligation to provide any driver details or accept liability for the notice.

Coupon-mad

So you think if i just use the fact that the NTK was sent after the 14 day period allowed (45 days in reality) it will be enough to win the case. 

Absolutely not.

That isn't what we are saying. Quite the opposite.  That argument has no merit at all for an admitted driver.  Bin it.

Your argument us what we've left you with, after you remove the stuff that I suggested and that @Mouse007 suggested.  What you are left with is the strongest argument and most common fact: unclear signs/hidden pay point.

Mouse007

I await input from others, and respect their deeper knowledge, but to me it appears they have no legal basis to bring these proceedings under the PoFA because they did not comply with the strict requirements therein. The evidence being the dates on their NTK.

You say they don't know who the driver is and there is the point that no presumption can be made that the RK was the driver.

I don't see it above, but what exactly do the Particulars of Claim say - driver or keeper?

What I remain unsure about is what happens if the Judge asks if you were the driver? This is where I am unsure, does that tip you defence over completely? must you answer that? what happens then?

Coupon-mad

If you were the driver you should say so in a court defence because later, a Judge might ask you, then you look disingenuous for trying to hide it.

Mouse007

Which I think leaves us back with the entrance sign in November 2021, not how they appear now (your photos). I refer you to my street view observations above. Your defence is the entrance sign was not visible then and (look at Google Street View) the absence of signs within the car park - I see none.

westcoast888

Many thanks for the help, as you can guess im absolutely clueless but your help should hopefully help me win against the scammers! i have been to court before a few times with business matters so i know what to expect although this should just be a side room jobby.

so if i understand correctly this is what i need to add to the claim as my defence 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The first time the defendant was aware of a parking charge was when a Parking charge notice (PCN) and a Notice to keeper (NTK) was received at the defendants home address. This letter demanded a charge of £80. The defendant was unaware of having parked somewhere where a parking fee was due. This NTK has an issue and post date of XXXXXX. The alleged ‘contravention date’ on the NTK is XXXXX over 45 days earlier. The defendant wasn’t sure if in fact this was a scam as he could not remember parking at this address.

KeithP

As you have confirmed you were both the keeper and driver, those dates do not help you at all.

The parking company has up to six months to get keeper details from the DVLA and their trade association allows them another month to get a Notice to Keeper to the keeper.

Coupon-mad

That draft misses what I told you is your main defence.

Stop concentrating on the irrelevant fact the PCN was posted a month and a half later.  We've already advised that is irrelevant to a driver.  The POFA is not relevant to you.

westcoast888

sorry, i didnt quite edit i properly, trying to do a few things at the same time this morning!

BTW I havent disclosed i was the driver, only on this forum.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The first time the defendant was aware of a parking charge was when a Parking charge notice (PCN) and a Notice to keeper (NTK) was received at the defendants home address. This letter demanded a charge of £80. The defendant was unaware of having parked somewhere where a parking fee was due. The defendant wasn’t sure if in fact this was a scam as he could not remember parking at this address.

westcoast888

Do I have to include in my defence that the signage was not up to scratch? 

The size and location and also the location of the p&d machine.