Armtrac Issued PCN for Rockpool Car Park, Cornwall - Outside the Relevant Time Period?

weddax

Yeah, AoS was filed in on the 25th of December.

Coupon-mad

weddax said:

Hi, so I'm having trouble trying to put together my defence using the template... In context of my situation, I'm not really looking to contest the parking fine as such, rather point out that the PPC failed to comply with POFA, and they therefore have no legal right to pursue me as the keeper of the vehicle. If someone could guide me on how to word this in section 2 & 3, I'd really appreciate it - I've tried looking through the various threads, but finding it a bit overwhelming.

Why don't you just search the forum for  POFA defence keeper liability and copy one from 2022?

But if you were driving, the above is an unsafe defence stance.  Think about it...

Surely your facts are either about Armtrac's faulty machines or  a fluttering ticket defence, depending on how they caught the driver out?

weddax

Coupon-mad said:

weddax said:

Hi, so I'm having trouble trying to put together my defence using the template... In context of my situation, I'm not really looking to contest the parking fine as such, rather point out that the PPC failed to comply with POFA, and they therefore have no legal right to pursue me as the keeper of the vehicle. If someone could guide me on how to word this in section 2 & 3, I'd really appreciate it - I've tried looking through the various threads, but finding it a bit overwhelming.

Why don't you just search the forum for  POFA defence keeper liability and copy one from 2022?

But if you were driving, the above is an unsafe defence stance.  Think about it...

Surely your facts are either about Armtrac's faulty machines or  a fluttering ticket defence, depending on how they caught the driver out?

Thank you, I'll look into previous defences.

Why would that be an unsafe defence stance in this case? Only the keeper of the vehicle is known to Armtrac, and the driver remains unknown. POFA states that an NTK should be issued to the relevant party within 14 days of the contravention date, otherwise the keeper is no longer liable, and they can only pursue the driver... Armtrac failed to deliver the PCN within those 14 days (The contravention date was 25/05/22, and the date of notice was 08/06/22 - taking into account that a notice is presumed to be delivered 2 working days after it has been posted, this would mean it was delivered on 10/06/22, one day out of the 14-day time limit).

Unless I've missed something regarding POFA? In which case I'll look into a different defence... But surely whoever was the driver of the vehicle is irrelevant here if they've failed to comply with POFA, and have no business in pursuing me as the keeper of the vehicle?

Coupon-mad

But they are pursuing you as keeper or driver.

Think about how this would all unravel at a hearing when the Judge or legal rep might well ask you in court if you were driving...

weddax

Coupon-mad said:

But they are pursuing you as keeper or driver.

Think about how this would all unravel at a hearing when the Judge or legal rep might well ask you in court if you were driving...

Okay, I'm confused here. When I first posted about this PCN, it was agreed that they hadn't complied with POFA, so they could only pursue the driver. At no point have I admitted to being the driver. But now you're saying because they're taking me to court, POFA no longer applies?

Trainerman

The point is, if the Judge asked if you were the driver, what would be the honest answer ??? If 'yes' PoFA goes flying out of the window

Le_Kirk

weddax said:

Coupon-mad said:

But they are pursuing you as keeper or driver.

Think about how this would all unravel at a hearing when the Judge or legal rep might well ask you in court if you were driving...

Okay, I'm confused here. When I first posted about this PCN, it was agreed that they hadn't complied with POFA, so they could only pursue the driver. At no point have I admitted to being the driver. But now you're saying because they're taking me to court, POFA no longer applies?

Admitting to being the driver is different to actually being the driver and appealing as such or telling the judge in your defence or witness statement is lying, which we do not condone!  If you were NOT the driver then that is fine.

Coupon-mad

weddax said:

Coupon-mad said:

But they are pursuing you as keeper or driver.

Think about how this would all unravel at a hearing when the Judge or legal rep might well ask you in court if you were driving...

Okay, I'm confused here. When I first posted about this PCN, it was agreed that they hadn't complied with POFA, so they could only pursue the driver. At no point have I admitted to being the driver. But now you're saying because they're taking me to court, POFA no longer applies?

That's not what I said at all.

weddax

So, what exactly is the point of POFA if they can just take you to court? My understanding was that because they didn't submit the PCN within the relevant timeframe, they could not pursue me as the keeper of the vehicle, only the driver, and the only way in which they could gather this information was if you were to admit to being the driver... I was told to ignore the threats, and that would be very unlikely to go to court.

Coupon-mad

You were told correctly. But they are pursuing you on two alternatives (driver or keeper).

The latter, in your case they cannot do.  And you can state that in the Defence but it is UNSAFE ON ITS OWN because it doesn't deal with the former allegation (that you were the driver).

They can and are perfectly entitled to cross-examine you at the hearing.   And a Judge might well ask you if you were driving.

DO NOT PRETEND YOU WERE NOT DRIVING.

Parking firms have never been obliged to use the POFA.  Plenty never do.  Paragraph 221 of the POFA Explanatory Notes, states that:

“… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6))..."