Parking fine for the car I left where I've rented HERTZ Van from..

B789

Heklind said:

Thank you for all the help.. I realised that I will have to attend hearing which will cost me a working day (more than how much they are claiming) but if there's a way to make sure they won't get a single penny from me then it's still worth.

Which bit of this...

B789 said:
Luckily you are dealing with the intellectually malnourished, bottom-dwelling duo of UKPC and DCB Legal. Just do exactly as advised by the forum regulars, file the robust defence linked to within the advised dates and you can put money on a bet that this scamming pair will discontinue before it actually gets to court.

...didn't you notice?

Heklind

KeithP said:

Heklind said:

Is it safe to share the content of paragraph 3 here? I wanted to post it here to ask what you think about it and also for a future reference for anyone else in similar situation.

Yes, if you want others to see it and comment on it.
No, if you are happy with it. 

It's up to you.

That's my perspective on what happend

Coupon-mad

Looks good but I'd get rid of everything from 'These circumstances are...' to the end as it adds nothing and it's not a fine.

We assume you have added words to admit in para 2 that you are the driver.  

Therefore para 4 of Johny86's defence (about the POFA and keeper liability) is irrelevant to you.

So replace para 4 with:

4.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding ParkingEye v Beavis) since it is punitive in nature and no fair grace period was allowed. It is not reasonable, in the mere minutes taken to complete paperwork to hire a van, for the Claimant's unregulated 'ticketer' to lurk in the shadows, take surreptitious photos and later allege that the driver somehow accepted an unknown 'penalty' contract with a third party. These are circumstances where it was not open to a driver to simply drop the paperwork, forget about hiring the van and drive out. The Defendant was indisputably authorised to attend these premises by car, as all users did at this site. The Claimant's secretive issuance of the charge was predatory and their purported 'terms' were not prominent; their position is absurd, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and there is a clear imbalance of contractual position.