Appeal rejected for private parking fine - what next?

Ange1402

I’ve just received a letter from elms legal who have been instructed by VCS to chase the outstanding charge otherwise they will take me to court. Merry Christmas to me! 

Shall I ignore them or send them the same email I sent to VCS? 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

Either is fine.

Ange1402

I’ll ignore them and look forward to court papers in the NY 😊

Ange1402

I’ve recently received a claim form for my unpaid ticket for stopping in a no stopping zone at East Midlands airport. I have submitted an acknowledgment of service which now gives me 28 days to write my defence. I’ve seen the templated defence on the newbie forum which I will adapt but unsure of how to adapt it to suit my specific case. I was going to rely on POFA as I wasn’t the driver ( leased car, I am registered keeper but partner was driving to pick me up from airport, I wasn’t even a passenger at the time of him stopping) but have read on the forum that relying on POFA isn’t a good defence. I don’t have any other defence, signs were very visible etc. Can anyone advise whether my defence could work - I know there are no guarantees,  or should I just give up now? Thanks! 

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

Relying on the PoFA in your case is a winning defence.  

Ange1402

@KeithP issue date on claim form is 5th March and acknowledgment of service filed on 12th March and received on 13th March. Planning to submit my defence by 7th April which according to my calculations puts me within the time limit but if I've worked that out wrong please let me know! 

Ange1402

Thanks @Coupon-mad, i'll get writing then. 

Castle

Ange1402 said:

@KeithP issue date on claim form is 5th March and acknowledgment of service filed on 12th March and received on 13th March. Planning to submit my defence by 7th April which according to my calculations puts me within the time limit but if I've worked that out wrong please let me know! 

As 7th April is a Sunday, the deadline is the next working day, namely 8th April.

Ange1402

I've written my defence and would really appreciate feedback on it. A lot of it is copy and paste from the standard defence template so I haven't included those paragraphs, the rest have been taken from defences I've found on this forum from cases very similar to mine.

I wasn't driving and was on a flight landing at the airport where the 'breach' happened. I can provide evidence of the flight taken though it did land an hour before the 'breach'. Is it worth mentioning that in my defence or would that come as witness/evidence stage? 

My partner is also insured and has access to the car. I haven't included this as he was the one who was driving and don't want to get him into trouble but if it helps my case (and doesn't get him into trouble) then I will add this to my defence as well.   

For context, the POC as sent to me is below: 

The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendant's vehicle, xxx, was identified in the East Midlands Airport on the 26/06/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest. 


Draft defence as below:

1+2 taken from template defence - admitted I am the keeper but no reference made to the driver. 

No keeper liability

3. The vehicle, registration  xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, is alleged to have stopped on the site of East Midlands Airport on 26/06/2023.  As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.

4. The land entered is not 'relevant' land as defined in the POFA. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that land is not 'relevant' where byelaws apply to it. In this case, the land in question is covered by East Midlands Airport Byelaws 2001, issued September 2009. As the land is not 'relevant' land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

5. Even if the land in question had been ‘relevant’ land under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the POFA, the Claimant did not send a ‘notice to keeper’ to the Defendant in time for it to be delivered within the ‘relevant period’. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that the ‘relevant period’ is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The Claimant’s ‘notice to keeper’ was delivered to the Defendant’s address on 04/08/2023, 39 days after the alleged breach of contract and the Claimant’s ‘hirer notification’ was issued to the lease company (Volkswagen Financial Services) on 11/07/2023, 15 days after the alleged breach of contract. The Claimant therefore does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle

6. Attention is drawn to paras 34 - 36 of VCS vs Edward [2023] H0KF6C9C (the Edward case). In this case the claimant stated a “reasonable belief” that the registered keeper is the driver of a vehicle where the registered keeper has declined to identify who was driving. Here, in finding for the defendant, the judgement rejected the notion that declining to identify the driver produced any kind or inference that the registered keeper was the driver. I decline to identify who was driving the vehicle on the date detailed in the claimants POC.

7. The claimant in the Edward case is also the claimant in this case. When appealing, through the claimants own process, upon first receiving their claim, the defendant made the same defence as above, namely that as the registered keeper they have no liability and declining to name the driver. It seems a reasonable conclusion that the claimant was aware there was no basis on which to pursue the defendant and poses the question whether the claimant acted in good faith in rejecting the defendants appeal and in their subsequent conduct in this matter. 

8-30 from template defence - financial loss, exaggerated claim, CRA breaches

31. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

32. In addition, the Claimant on 26/06/2023, the date of the alleged breach of contract, had no landowner authority in place at the location of the alleged breach of contract. The Defendant can provide evidence that the Claimant had forgotten to renew their landowner authority in the year up to July 2023. This is a clear breach of the DVLA KADOE rules and means that all Charge Notices issued in that period are not only void, but also breach the UK GDPR / DPA 2018.

33 - 36 from template defence - ADR, conclusion, costs
 
Statement of truth