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

weddax

Okay... So, should I admit to being the driver in my defence? Is there any point in mentioning that the PCN was not POFA-compliant in my defence?

At this point, my defence seems pretty weak... I don't have a parking ticket to prove anything, so it would just be a case of my word versus theirs. I could bring up their faulty ticket machines, but I don't think this was ever identified as an issue with their machine at Rockpool.

Coupon-mad

weddax said:

Okay... So, should I admit to being the driver in my defence? Is there any point in mentioning that the PCN was not POFA-compliant in my defence?

Not sure what more info you need. I thought I had covered that already:

And you can state that in the Defence but it is UNSAFE ON ITS OWN 

"I could bring up their faulty ticket machines, but I don't think this was ever identified as an issue with their machine at Rockpool."

Errr...it certainly was.  I won a Rockpool case at appeal (Armtrac gave up) last Summer for a friend, and the machine only took 3 digits of the VRM.  The Rockpool staff admitted the machine was faulty.

Rockpool was in a Daily Mail article too.

weddax

Hi, so I've tried putting together a defence. I have no idea if this is any good, it's not something that I've had any experience putting together, so it might be a bit short, and I'm sure there's many faults to pick at...

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. As was reported by local (Cornwall Live) and nationwide (Daily Mail) news sources in 2022, the Pay & Display ticket machines operated by KBT Cornwall Ltd in Rockpool car park have been proven to be faulty, resulting in countless victims receiving unjustified Parking Charge Notices. The date upon which the Defendant’s Parking Charge Notice was issued matches with the reports in the news, and therefore cannot be deemed trustworthy. 

It is also noted that KBT Cornwall Ltd failed to send the initial Notice to Keeper within the 14-day timeframe set out by the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, and therefore the keeper of the vehicle can no longer be held liable. 

Coupon-mad

In para #2 you need to say specifically, that the Defendant was not the driver

*(only if true!).


I'd add to this:

3. As was reported by local (Cornwall Live) and nationwide (Daily Mail) news sources in 2022, the Pay & Display ticket machines operated by KBT Cornwall Ltd in Rockpool car park have been proven to be faulty, resulting in countless victims receiving unjustified Parking Charge Notices. 

3.1. The date upon which the Defendant’s Parking Charge Notice was issued matches with the reports in the news.  This indisputable fact, plus the fact that the insured drivers of the vehicle are honest individuals who always pay and display in such a car park, leads the Defendant to reasonably conclude on the balance of probabilities, that payment was made for the period of parking.

3.2. Therefore, any breach of contract is denied and the Claimants are well aware of the issues with their/the client's systems at Rockpool, so the allegations in this Claim cannot be deemed trustworthy or reliable.  At best, the Defendant avers that it was just another machine failure or a fluttering ticket (this Claimant's own fault in either case), and neither scenario has the level of legitimate interest needed to support the issuance of a punitive parking charge.

3.3. Further, it is also noted that KBT Cornwall Ltd failed to send the initial Notice to Keeper within the 14-day timeframe set out by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore the Defendant (merely the keeper of the vehicle but not the driver) cannot be held liable. 

weddax

Coupon-mad said:

In para #2 you need to say specifically, that the Defendant was not the driver

*(only if true!).


I'd add to this:

3. As was reported by local (Cornwall Live) and nationwide (Daily Mail) news sources in 2022, the Pay & Display ticket machines operated by KBT Cornwall Ltd in Rockpool car park have been proven to be faulty, resulting in countless victims receiving unjustified Parking Charge Notices. 

3.1. The date upon which the Defendant’s Parking Charge Notice was issued matches with the reports in the news.  This indisputable fact, plus the fact that the insured drivers of the vehicle are honest individuals who always pay and display in such a car park, leads the Defendant to reasonably conclude on the balance of probabilities, that payment was made for the period of parking.

3.2. Therefore, any breach of contract is denied and the Claimants are well aware of the issues with their/the client's systems at Rockpool, so the allegations in this Claim cannot be deemed trustworthy or reliable.  At best, the Defendant avers that it was just another machine failure or a fluttering ticket (this Claimant's own fault in either case), and neither scenario has the level of legitimate interest needed to support the issuance of a punitive parking charge.

3.3. Further, it is also noted that KBT Cornwall Ltd failed to send the initial Notice to Keeper within the 14-day timeframe set out by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore the Defendant (merely the keeper of the vehicle but not the driver) cannot be held liable. 

Thank you, that's so much better!

If the Defendant was to say that a family member also uses the car, and is not sure who the driver was that particular day, would that hold up in court?

Coupon-mad

Only if true.

Surely you in fact know who the driver was (you don't have to name them) and you also know what went wrong?

You know if the fee was paid and the ticket displayed?

Maybe they used the machine that only asked for 3 digits from the VRM, as the driver in my friend's Rockpool case did?

Or did the wind flip the ticket off the dashboard? Was it a windscreen PCN for a non-visible ticket or a later PCN by post alleging non payment?

weddax

Coupon-mad said:

Only if true.

Surely you in fact know who the driver was (you don't have to name them) and you also know what went wrong?

You know if the fee was paid and the ticket displayed?

Maybe they used the machine that only asked for 3 digits from the VRM, as the driver in my friend's Rockpool case did?

Or did the wind flip the ticket off the dashboard? Was it a windscreen PCN for a non-visible ticket or a later PCN by post alleging non payment?

Okay, so if the Defendant was to admit to being the driver in their defence, would they just amend the part about PoFA by cutting out the bit about liability? I'm assuming keeping that in the defence would still help to show that the Claimant has a total disregard for following procedures, even if the Defendant would be accepting liability as driver?

It was PCN by post, so definitely not a case of fluttering ticket. I know the fee was paid, and the ticket displayed, but the driver didn't keep hold of their ticket, and I was only made aware that there was an issue once the PCN came through in the post a couple of weeks later, so can only assume it would have been an issue with the machine, as reported by other customers who used the same car park.

Coupon-mad

Okay, so if the Defendant was to admit to being the driver in their defence, would they just amend the part about PoFA by cutting out the bit about liability? I'm assuming keeping that in the defence would still help to show that the Claimant has a total disregard for following procedures, even if the Defendant would be accepting liability as driver?

Nope.  They don't have to send a NTK by a certain deadline in cases where they are holding the driver liable.

Add in #2 that the D was the driver.

Change #3 to explain that you know the D paid and displayed (basically what you just said in your second paragrapgh should be in your defence).

Remove ALL reference to the POFA and deadlines.

weddax

So, latest development... I received this letter from BW Legal after submitting my defence. It basically says that they plan to move forward with court action, but they're giving me a chance to pay before the 30th. I just want to be sure - if I did go to court and lost, as long as I pay the fine within the 30 days, there's no chance of me getting a CCJ, right?
Also, if I did lose, is it likely I would have to pay additional fees on top of the £250 they're already demanding?

KeithP

You were expecting that letter weren't you?

Item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence mentions the 'intend to proceed' letter.

If this progresses to a hearing and you lose then if you pay the amount prescribed by the court within the given timescale then no lasting Judgment will remain.

If you were to lose, it is highly likely that the amount you need to pay will be less than that claimed.