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

am1980

@Coupon-mad

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 to be 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, “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. Any evidence in this regard may therefore be highly relevant.” (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. O

Coupon-mad

Change it all to normal numbering and of course, re-number below.

I would add a paragraph after your current 'menu of choices' para 3.4, that says that the D's research has revealed that this Claimant has been held by POPLA Adjudicators not to use the prescribed wording in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. In such instances, there can be no keeper liability (quote from our friend Henry G again because he covers that too!).

I advise that you thoroughly read the whole section in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 that talks about keeper liability, and use it both now and at WS stage when it will be an Exhibit in your court bundle.

am1980

Thank you @Coupon-mad . This needs to be submitted by tonight as I have no time tomorrow. I've read the POPLA report and will ensure to be more familiar with 2015 and 2012 before the WS needs to be submitted. 

When you state needing to renumber, would you suggest making all numbers whole numbers? 

Adapted below : 

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.  The Defendant’s research has revealed that this Claimant has been held by POPLA Adjudicators not to use the prescribed wording in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. In such instances, there can be no keeper liability.

KeithP

am1980 said:

When you state needing to renumber, would you suggest making all numbers whole numbers? 

Yes, that is the suggestion.

Coupon-mad

am1980 said:

Thank you @Coupon-mad . This needs to be submitted by tonight as I have no time tomorrow. I've read the POPLA report and will ensure to be more familiar with 2015 and 2012 before the WS needs to be submitted. 

When you state needing to renumber, would you suggest making all numbers whole numbers? 

Adapted below : 

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.  The Defendant’s research has revealed that this Claimant has been held by POPLA Adjudicators not to use the prescribed wording in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. In such instances, there can be no keeper liability.

Almost there but you still haven't added the extra bit I advised you to read from Henry's words about keeper liability.

clue: it ends in 'doesn't pass'.

am1980

@Coupon-mad This section :

"A notice to keeper issued on the basis of evidence obtained using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) should arrive on or before the fourteenth day after the parking event. Where a parking charge notice is fixed to the vehicle or handed to the driver, a traditional ‘parking ticket’, then a notice to keeper issued following that, should arrive between the twenty eighth and the fifty sixth day after the parking event. If these timescales are not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass under Schedule 4"

Also, I can't find the 2012 report online, the official site only goes to 2013 and I am struggling using the search function on this forum. 

Coupon-mad

POPLA started in 2013.

POFA is not POPLA.

It's only the 2015 Annual Report that interests you, and yes that is the wording that I think completes your defence.