Not Parked Correctly Within The Marking of the Bay or Space

Coupon-mad

I don't know what entire paragraph you are planning on removing but why would you? The Judge needs some facts to go on and if an occupant of the car was disabled then explain more, not less!

CaseTiger

Coupon-mad said:

I don't know what entire paragraph you are planning on removing but why would you? The Judge needs some facts to go on and if an occupant of the car was disabled then explain more, not less!

TBH, I mentioned this fact in my appeal to UKPC. Here is the exact sentence from the appeal: 

'Note that there was a disabled passenger in the car.' 

So, I didn’t think this paragraph came out of nowhere, but look I also don’t want to confuse the judge.

CaseTiger

How about changing the paragraph to this? I’m actually referencing the appeal letter.

3.3. The photos provided by the claimant on their website show my car was obstructed by another vehicle, making it difficult to park properly and/or for passengers to get in and out. This was especially challenging due to the defendant’s mobility issue, which had already been mentioned to the claimant in a previous appeal.

is this good enough now?

Coupon-mad

My advice is unchanged and your appeal to UKPC should be mentioned too.

Like I said: the Judge needs some facts to go on and if an occupant of the car was disabled AND UKPC ALREADY KNOW THIS FROM YOUR APPEAL then explain more, not less! 

CaseTiger

Coupon-mad said:

My advice is unchanged and your appeal to UKPC should be mentioned too.

Like I said: the Judge needs some facts to go on and if an occupant of the car was disabled AND UKPC ALREADY KNOW THIS FROM YOUR APPEAL then explain more, not less! 

I appreciate that. but please provide your opinion on this, now:

3.3. The photos provided by the claimant on their website show my car was obstructed by another vehicle, making it difficult to park properly and/or for passengers to get in and out. This was especially challenging due to the defendant’s mobility issue, which had already been mentioned to the claimant in a previous appeal.

is this good enough now?

Coupon-mad

The POC seems to be mostly copy-and-paste, but the most important part is as follows:
…
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parked Correctly Within The Marking of the Bay or Space 
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4. 
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
…

The car was parked with a rear wheel unintentionally outside the space markings. However, there were no additional parking bays, so the wheel did not obstruct another parking slot.

I have included this in my defence. Here is paragraph 3 of my defence:


 2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. However, the Defendant is unaware of the identity of the driver at the relevant time.

3.1. Driver Allegation: The claimant alleges that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. However, the claimant has not provided evidence to substantiate this claim. The vehicle is insured to be driven by the defendant and two other authorized drivers (family members), making it difficult to ascertain definitively who was driving at the time. Without proof of driver identity, the claim against the defendant as the driver should be dismissed.

3.2. Keeper Liability: If the claimant is aware of the driver’s identity, they should pursue that individual directly rather than the keeper, in accordance with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 5 (1). Additionally, the Notice to Keeper issued by the claimant does not comply with POFA 2012 requirements. Specifically, it fails to include the period of time during which the vehicle was parked, as required by POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a). Therefore, the claimant cannot hold the defendant liable as the keeper, and the claim should be dismissed.

3.3. The photos provided by the claimant on their website show that the car was obstructed by another vehicle, making it difficult to park properly and/or for passengers to get in and out. The restrictive design of narrow car park bays in car parks is always especially challenging, due to the Defendant’s mobility issue, which had already been mentioned to the Claimant in a previous appeal. The Defendant cannot recall if they were the driver or merely a passenger that day but they were present and needed sufficient space to get out. It will be indisputable common ground that the Claimant has known since the early appeal that the Defendant meets the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability.

3.4. The Claimant has not provided evidence showing that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly displayed at the entrance of the car park. Without proper signage at the entrance, it cannot be reasonably expected that drivers were aware of the parking terms before entering. Additionally, the parking bay markings are broken and poorly maintained, which further undermines the claim as drivers could not reasonably determine the exact boundaries of the parking bay.

3.5. The Claimant’s photos capture only a brief timeframe and do not provide enough context to support their claim. Given the minor nature of the alleged breach and the limited evidence, any claim should be considered disproportionate and unreasonable. And given the fact that they knew months ago that the Defendant is mobility-impaired, the Claimant had a statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' and should have cancelled the charge on appeal.

3.6. The photos show that only one wheel of the vehicle was slightly outside the parking bay. Since no parking spaces were blocked or affected by this minor deviation, no loss of business has been caused. There is no legitimate interest to support this charge and the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis is fully distinguished.

I suggest the above.

CaseTiger

Coupon-mad said:

The POC seems to be mostly copy-and-paste, but the most important part is as follows:
…
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parked Correctly Within The Marking of the Bay or Space 
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4. 
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
…

The car was parked with a rear wheel unintentionally outside the space markings. However, there were no additional parking bays, so the wheel did not obstruct another parking slot.

I have included this in my defence. Here is paragraph 3 of my defence:


 2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. However, the Defendant is unaware of the identity of the driver at the relevant time.

3.1. Driver Allegation: The claimant alleges that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. However, the claimant has not provided evidence to substantiate this claim. The vehicle is insured to be driven by the defendant and two other authorized drivers (family members), making it difficult to ascertain definitively who was driving at the time. Without proof of driver identity, the claim against the defendant as the driver should be dismissed.

3.2. Keeper Liability: If the claimant is aware of the driver’s identity, they should pursue that individual directly rather than the keeper, in accordance with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 5 (1). Additionally, the Notice to Keeper issued by the claimant does not comply with POFA 2012 requirements. Specifically, it fails to include the period of time during which the vehicle was parked, as required by POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a). Therefore, the claimant cannot hold the defendant liable as the keeper, and the claim should be dismissed.

3.3. The photos provided by the claimant on their website show that the car was obstructed by another vehicle, making it difficult to park properly and/or for passengers to get in and out. The restrictive design of narrow car park bays in car parks is always especially challenging, due to the Defendant’s mobility issue, which had already been mentioned to the Claimant in a previous appeal. The Defendant cannot recall if they were the driver or merely a passenger that day but they were present and needed sufficient space to get out. It will be indisputable common ground that the Claimant has known since the early appeal that the Defendant meets the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability.

3.4. The Claimant has not provided evidence showing that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly displayed at the entrance of the car park. Without proper signage at the entrance, it cannot be reasonably expected that drivers were aware of the parking terms before entering. Additionally, the parking bay markings are broken and poorly maintained, which further undermines the claim as drivers could not reasonably determine the exact boundaries of the parking bay.

3.5. The Claimant’s photos capture only a brief timeframe and do not provide enough context to support their claim. Given the minor nature of the alleged breach and the limited evidence, any claim should be considered disproportionate and unreasonable. And given the fact that they knew months ago that the Defendant is mobility-impaired, the Claimant had a statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' and should have cancelled the charge on appeal.

3.6. The photos show that only one wheel of the vehicle was slightly outside the parking bay. Since no parking spaces were blocked or affected by this minor deviation, no loss of business has been caused. There is no legitimate interest to support this charge and the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis is fully distinguished.

I suggest the above.

This looks great. I’m going to submit it as is tomorrow during business hours and wait for their response. Thank you very much for your help!

1505grandad

Para 3.2  -  "Therefore, the claimant cannot hold the defendant liable as the keeper, and the claim should be dismissed."

Should that be driver?

3.1  -  typo  -  "authorized"  -  should be "authorised" in UK

CaseTiger

1505grandad said:

Para 3.2  -  "Therefore, the claimant cannot hold the defendant liable as the keeper, and the claim should be dismissed."

Should that be driver?

3.1  -  typo  -  "authorized"  -  should be "authorised" in UK

Thanks for your comment, that I just noticed.

Paragraph 3.1 is supposed to imply: "Since the NTK is non-compliant, the defendant, as the Keeper, should not be held liable for the parking charge." 

does it?

... and the reason for non-compliance is that the NTK does not include the period of time the car was in the car park, as required by POFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a).

POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) states: 

The notice must— specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

is that a good point/reason?

I corrected the "authorised". thank you for pointing it out.

CaseTiger

Sorry I was meaning the *paragraph 3.2