Civil Enforcement Ltd

outraged_

KeithP said:

outraged_ said:

They now sent me my initial response, which I didn't have anymore and I clearly give the impression it was myself driving it, as I write it in the first person. 

If they know who was driving then PoFA has no relevance.
I.e. no point in mentioning the lack of hire documents.

OK, so if I appear to be the driver and this has no relevance, the following still applies (see my draft appeal above):

2) Photographic evidence is non-compliant
3) No evidence of period parked
4) No authority from landowner to operate
5) Lack of signage, unclear & incorrect signage
6) The ANPR system used is neither reliable nor accurate

B789

You say you weren't driving but have accidentally given the impression you were driving by writing your appeal in the first person. Can you evidence in any way that you were not driving? If you weren't driving, were you in the car and if so, would the other person be prepared to provide a witness statement testifying as such? If you were not in the car, is there anyone else that can testify that you were elsewhere at the time of the parking event?

It is just a pity to throw away the golden ticket defence point. If you have no option but to defend ar the driver then you should use the standard Template defence. If the PoC are very sparse and/or incoherent, then use the one bu Johny86.

1505grandad

"By virtue of the nature of only entry and exit times being recorded, Met Parking services Ltd a.........."?

outraged_

B789 said:

You say you weren't driving but have accidentally given the impression you were driving by writing your appeal in the first person. Can you evidence in any way that you were not driving? If you weren't driving, were you in the car and if so, would the other person be prepared to provide a witness statement testifying as such? If you were not in the car, is there anyone else that can testify that you were elsewhere at the time of the parking event?

It is just a pity to throw away the golden ticket defence point. If you have no option but to defend ar the driver then you should use the standard Template defence. If the PoC are very sparse and/or incoherent, then use the one bu Johny86.

I know, very stupid. That's because I wrote with the driver next to me.
The hire documents have the driver's details so that proves it wasn't me. I know exactly where I was on that day, and that was in London, on my way to Gatwick to pick my mother up as there were train strikes.
I have the hotel booking for the driver too, which does not include my name.

I messed it up big time, I know. But now this is all taking so much of my time that I'm very tempted to just pay the £60 and get them off my back.

outraged_

1505grandad said:

"By virtue of the nature of only entry and exit times being recorded, Met Parking services Ltd a.........."?

That was the initial draft based on the template, which has now been corrected thank you.

Coupon-mad

The way this is going (away from the winning point) is the wrong approach, IMHO.  

Do NOT remove the winning point about the lack of hire documents / POFA.

DO remove 2, 3 and 6, which are unhelpful.

DO state this vital thing (below) as your very first paragraph:

"I wasn't the driver as I wasn't even insured to drive the hire vehicle."

Explain that your first appeal was written in the first person only for simplicity and because you were the passenger who used or helped the driver to use RingGo (if that was the case) AND ATTACH EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE NOT INSURED ON THIS HIRE CAR.

outraged_

Coupon-mad said:

The way this is going (away from the winning point) is the wrong approach, IMHO.  

Do NOT remove the winning point about the lack of hire documents / POFA.

DO remove 2, 3 and 6, which are unhelpful.

DO state this vital thing (below) as your very first paragraph:

"I wasn't the driver as I wasn't even insured to drive the hire vehicle."

Explain that your first appeal was written in the first person only for simplicity and because you were the passenger who used or helped the driver to use RingGo (if that was the case) AND ATTACH EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE NOT INSURED ON THIS HIRE CAR.

I was helping the driver at the time via whatsapp, as the person called me to help with the payment on the app. We were convinced it was a RingGo location because they were the only machines available, hence why the initial appeal was made in the innocent assumption that the parking was only due for those 3 minutes. It turns out the Ringo location is only for a few spaces, it seems to be a shared car park and some bays are for a private club, which we found out later doing an internet search. But again, this is not clear at all from the correspondence they sent.

 If I attach the hire documents, I will admit who the driver was... would that be helpful?

The thing is as well, the address they supplied is completely wrong: The car park is on a different road, there aren't any car parks on the road they provided... They haven't shown the signs on the PCN either.

B789

outraged_ said:
 If I attach the hire documents, I will admit who the driver was... would that be helpful?

No, because then they will just pursue the driver unless you don't mind throwing them under the bus. At the moment, do as @Coupon-mad advised.

I would like to try and clarify in my mind, did you hire the vehicle in your name but gave the name of someone else as the driver? I'm not sure how this was possible. If you are the named Defendant, in what capacity did they use your name and address on the claim? If the hire documents were in the name of the driver, how come you received the claim?

You also state that you were not even in the car as you were in London on your way to Gatwick. You also say that you "wrote with the driver next to you" but then you also say "I was helping the driver at the time via whatsapp, as the person called me to help with the payment on the app." There is confliction in the information you are providing.

Coupon-mad

Does the driver have the same surname as you? If not, I would supply the document but redact just the first name (to protect the driver).

Still proves it wasn't you driving.

Also, say all this to POPLA at the start:

I was NOT IN THE CAR AND NOT INSURED TO DRIVE IT.  I know about the case and was the hirer only.  Not the driver, nor was I even there. I appealed in the first person for simplicity.  That does not make it lawful for the operator to assume that the hirer appellant was the driver just because I appealed in my own name with knowledge of what happened.  And in this case they are wrong. I attach proof I was not insured.

 I was remotely helping the driver at the time via whatsapp, as the person called me to help with the payment on the app. We were convinced it was a RingGo location because they were the only machines available, hence why the initial appeal was made in the innocent assumption that the parking was only due for those 3 minutes.

It turns out the Ringo location is only for a few spaces, it seems to be a shared car park and some bays are for a private club, which we found out later doing an internet search. But again, this is not clear at all, either from the woefully inadequate signs & lines, or from the non-POFA NTH.

Fruitcake

If you were not driving, then you say so.

The hire documents won't have the driver's name, only that of the hirer.

Do not name the driver. 

Appeal as hirer/lessee.