Residential PCN now a CCJ claim UKPC/DCB

justiceseeker180

Not_A_Hope said:

I put I am not the registered keeper in brakets as I was not sure what to put there since I am not the registered keeper. It was a company vehicle.

Is the V5C log book in your name or did someone in the company transfer this PCN to you as user or day to day keeper of the car?

Have you checked the whether NTK was POFA compliant in order to ensure your para 4 is true?

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. 

No the V5C is not in my name. It was not transfered to me. Unfortunately upon reciving the PCN I contested it and revealing my personal information. If that means I have put wrong information in defence then it is because of a lack of understanding please explain.

Coupon-mad

That's OK. When you appealed did you admit to being the driver? If so, do the aame in the defence.

justiceseeker180

POC Particulars of claim

justiceseeker180

Coupon-mad said:

That's OK. When you appealed did you admit to being the driver? If so, do the aame in the defence.

I did not say I am the driver but I think with all that I said it was pretty obvious I was. Sounds like its easier just to put I was the driver

Not_A_Hope

Sounds like you received and responded to a Notice to Driver placed on your windscreen rather than a Notice to Keeper received through the post. What exactly did you respond with?

Unless you actually received a NTK or have admitted to being the driver I am not sure it is worth including the para on POFA in your defence. As @Coupon-mad suggests just state you were the driver if that is true and delete references to POFA. It shouldn’t matter as you have many strong defence points anyway

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Try this, if all this is true

2. The location was the place where the Defendant lived at the time.  It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the driver and indeed the unfair parking charge was immediately (but futilely) contested.  Sadly, this involved going through the motions of the kangaroo court farce of a self-serving 'appeals' system that the Defendant now knows is just there to give this rogue industry a veil of legitimacy, and is in fact so anti-consumer and broken that it is about to be replaced by Government intervention.

3.  Any breach of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' by the Defendant is denied, not that the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim ('POC') make out nor mention any details of any term, nor the period of parking observed, nor the alleged breach.  It is quite possible that on that day, the Defendant was targeted when briefly loading/unloading items or alternatively, fetching a permit from inside the flat, given this Claimant is notorious for allowing no grace period. The Claimant's response to the appeal was generic template rejection letter with no regard for the facts, or the rights of the residents they pretend to be protecting.

4. In any event, express permission to park had been granted by the leaseholder of (old address where the charge was issued) whereby the Defendant's tenancy agreement already permitted the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement and grant/right to park a vehicle in the common outside access area/car park, without limitation as to ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a permit (not that the POC even state what the allegation is).

5.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant offered nothing of value that the Defendant as an authorised resident did not already enjoy.  There was a lack of consideration and thus, no meeting of minds and no agreement, such that the elements of a contract are absent.  Third party parking signs cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and

(ii) retrospectively and unilaterally restrict residents' grants, rights or parking easements where parking terms are already agreed and provided for within a tenancy agreement.

6.  The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7.  The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

etc....

Try the above then, if you were a tenant.  Or were you a leaseholder?

justiceseeker180

Not_A_Hope said:

Sounds like you received and responded to a Notice to Driver placed on your windscreen rather than a Notice to Keeper received through the post. What exactly did you respond with?

Unless you actually received a NTK or have admitted to being the driver I am not sure it is worth including the para on POFA in your defence. As @Coupon-mad suggests just state you were the driver if that is true and delete references to POFA. It shouldn’t matter as you have many strong defence points anyway

At the time I aproached it emotionally and had a rant. No rude words or anything like that just said what I thought of the PCN. Ive learnt a lot since then. It was placed on widscreen and I responded. can not remember exactly but possibly through their website initally.

Coupon-mad

That's fine.  See my new suggestion.  What were you actually doing and why no permit on the dash? Or were you unloading outside if a bay, to access the flat?  What's the reason for PCN?

justiceseeker180

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine.  See my new suggestion.  What were you actually doing and why no permit on the dash? Or were you unloading outside if a bay, to access the flat?  What's the reason for PCN?

Yes appreciate. Happy to divulge but is it wise to discuss the case specifics here as it will narrow down my case or does that have any relavance?

Coupon-mad

Perfectly safe and better to discuss it here.