Claim form - Premier Park, on behalf of my parents.

Coupon-mad

am1980 said:

Thank you. I'll edit the paragraphs. 

We did know about the PCN, but due to the threatening nature of the letters and the disproportionate 'fine' she presumed they were a scam, and (wrongly) treated them as such by throwing them - until now. Should I change the latter part of 2.2 to represent this? 

Are there any other points which could be included? In the mean time I'll look for some other good examples of statements in the hope of discovering some ideas, and would also be grateful if you can point me in the direction of some good examples. 

If you know/knew at the time about the actual PCN, are you certain you can DENY being the driver? You mustn't lie, but equally if you know it wasn't you, say so.

am1980

@coupon-mad The owner was not the driver.  I now understand that you mean the PCN at the time of parking, rather than the letters that came afterwards.
The owner was aware of the letters that came afterwards, but was not the driver at the time. 

Does the owner need to say whether they know who was the driver of the vehicle at the time? 

The driver may have tried to use the Numberplate machine and got it wrong because I know they go to the carpark in question as its near to a hospital and as they are law abiding citizens who always try to find a payment machine.

Might bringing this into the equation clash with the point regarding the signage? I've also read on other posts that they have had the printouts from the machines to see if there were similar numberplates input that same day, but how long this will take and whether it could be beneficial isn't something I am aware of atm. 

Coupon-mad

State that the registered keeper Defendant is aware who was driving but there is no obligation to throw that person under the bus/steamroller that is the parking roboclaim model, given how harrowing and time consuming this aggressive pursuit is and the toll it has taken on the Defendant's peace of mind.

Then quote Henry Greenslade (search the forum).

Re the below, I WOULD add this and that the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that this whole farce is not merely a result of a typo and a regime where good faith goes out of the window and the rogue parking operator decides that a simple (possible) VRM keying error - that they could have identified -  deserves to be punished :

"The driver may have tried to use the Numberplate machine and got it wrong because I know they go to the carpark in question as its near to a hospital and as they are law abiding citizens who always try to find a payment machine."

am1980

Thank you everyone. Below is an update, I didn't know whether you intended for me to use your phrase word for word, but I liked the way it sounded anyway. 

Maybe I should add to 3.5 along the lines of the driver frequenting the hospital near to the carpark, and that there has never been any threatening letters before nor since?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 

 

3 The Defendant denies being the driver and denies entering into any agreement with the Claimant.

 

 

3.1 The Defendant now believes that The Claim relates to threatening letters demanding money, which she originally believed were scam letters due to her time working within the Police.

 

3.2 The Defendant is aware who drives the vehicle, but there is no obligation to disclose their details by throwing them ‘under the bus’ that is the aggressive, automated parking ‘roboclaim’ model. Especially considering how distressing and time consuming their pursuit has been, and the effect it has had on The Defendant’s peace of mind thus far.

 

3.3 The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they presume the Defendant liable. The Claim is pursuing the driver/keeper of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

 

3.4 The Defendant has been to the car park in question to try and understand The Claim better, but this only has signs for ‘Park Bee Go’ and seems to bare no relation to Premier Park Limited. The Defendant does not believe she has been provided with photographic evidence of the purported contractual breach.

 

3.5 The Defendant puts The Claimant to strict proof that this farce is not merely a typo in relation to a VRM machine by the driver of the vehicle; where good faith has gone out of the window and a rogue parking operator decides to punish, rather than identify a possible keying error.

 

3.6 Since receiving The Claim, The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement. Once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

Coupon-mad

Getting there but none of this is in it yet:


"The driver may have tried to use the Numberplate machine and got it wrong because I know they go to the carpark in question as its near to a hospital and as they are law abiding citizens who always try to find a payment machine."


And:

State that the registered keeper Defendant is aware who was driving but there is no obligation to throw that person under the bus/steamroller that is the parking roboclaim model, given how harrowing and time consuming this aggressive pursuit is and the toll it has taken on the Defendant's peace of mind.

Then quote Henry Greenslade (search the forum).

am1980

@Coupon-mad 3 The Defendant denies being the driver and denies entering into any agreement with the Claimant.

 Highlighted in bold is text I've changed that I'd like clarification if they're acceptable (3.5, 3.7)

Henry Greenslade - in there at 3.3 but I noticed others use this when they do not know who the driver was. In our case we are stating that we do know who the driver was. Does this matter? 

3.2 The Defendant is aware who drives the vehicle, but there is no obligation to disclose their details by throwing them ‘under the bus’ that is the aggressive, automated parking ‘roboclaim’ model. Especially considering how distressing and time consuming their pursuit has been, and the effect it has had on The Defendant’s peace of mind thus far.

3.3 The Claimant has no right to assert that the Defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. Parking and Traffic Appeals Service and Parking on Private Land Appeals Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (2015).The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged parking contravention, however the defendant was not driving said vehicle on the date in question. 

3.4 The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they presume the Defendant liable. The Claim is pursuing the driver/keeper of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3.5 The Defendant has been to the car park in question to try and understand The Claim better, but this only has signs for ‘Park Bee Go’ and seems to bare no relation to Premier Park Limited. The Defendant does not believe she has been provided with photographic evidence of the purported contractual breach.

3.6 The Defendant puts The Claimant to strict proof that this farce is not merely a typo in relation to a VRM machine by the driver of the vehicle; where good faith has gone out of the window and a rogue parking operator decides to punish, rather than identify a possible keying error.

3.7 The driver frequents the car park in question as it is near to a hospital and may have tried to use the Number plate and got it wrong. The driver is a law abiding citizen who always tries to find a payment machine, whether or not the driver and/or land operator believes there is a contract in place.

3.8 Since receiving The Claim, The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement. Once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

Coupon-mad

Ah I didn't mean that part of Henry's words, I meant the bit after it in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 where he says something like 'Unlike a NIP, there is no obligation to name the driver'.

am1980

Thank you @Coupon-mad . Please see if this is the correct wording (I've been searching the forum for the correct text but unsure).

Also, do I need to attach certain exhibits to this, can't find exactly where I know what to attach and where to find.. but I can keep researching this if nobody knows? 

3 The Defendant denies being the driver and denies entering into any agreement with the Claimant. 

3.1 The Defendant now believes that The Claim relates to threatening letters demanding money, which she originally believed were scam letters due to her time working within the Police.

3.2 The Defendant believes she is aware who was driving the vehicle, but there is no obligation to disclose their details by throwing them ‘under the bus’ that is the aggressive, automated parking ‘roboclaim’ model. Especially considering how distressing and time consuming their pursuit has been, and the effect it has had on The Defendant’s peace of mind thus far.

3.3 The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015) 

3.4 The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they presume the Defendant liable. The Claim is pursuing the driver/keeper of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

 

3.5 The Defendant has been to the car park in question to try and understand The Claim better, but this only has signs for ‘Park Bee Go’ and seems to bare no relation to Premier Park Limited. The Defendant does not believe she has been provided with photographic evidence of the purported contractual breach.

 

3.6 The Defendant puts The Claimant to strict proof that this farce is not merely a typo in relation to a VRM machine by the driver of the vehicle; where good faith has gone out of the window and a rogue parking operator decides to punish, rather than identify a possible keying error.

3.7 The driver frequents the car park in question as it is near to a hospital and may have tried to use the Number plate and got it wrong. The driver is a law abiding citizen who always tries to find a payment machine, whether or not the driver and/or land operator believes there is a contract in place.

3.8 Since receiving The Claim, The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement. Once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

Le_Kirk

No evidence goes with the defence; that will be sent later at witness statement stage - all this information is to be found in the NEWBIE sticky.

Coupon-mad

I still can't see 'unlike with a Police NIP' nor 'there is no obligation on a keeper to name the driver' (words from our man Henry).

You just have to read the POPLA Annual Report!