F1rst Parking - Refusing POPLA code and Debt Collectors

Le_Kirk

KeithP said:

Coupon-mad said:

If there are 2 threads about this same bog standard PCN then we should ask the Forum Team to merge them. One thread, one case.

This is the OP's fourth thread, but the first three - including all the advice and guidance therein - have simply vanished.

Yep, I was wondering why the profile shows four threads but only one was available!

F1rst_Parking_Fanboy

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Your scenario isn't relevant 

Agreed. The important point that the OP is missing here, is that the facts don't matter.  They need to stop looking for "a case like mine".  Absolutely not needed!

A DCB Ltd £170 letter EXACTLY like that one is already shown in the pictures in the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread, where I beg people not to ask about those letters - please spare us from duplicate threads - for the precise reason that cases are all the same and nobody needs to waste their time on this, least of all the OP!

If there are 2 threads about this same bog standard PCN then we should ask the Forum Team to merge them. One thread, one case.

What the OP also needs to take on board is that the facts don't even matter (in most cases) at court claim stage!

DCB Legal always discontinue single PCN claims. A defendant could almost put a nursery rhyme in paragraph 3 of the Template Defence and would still win (no hearing needed) due to the discontinuance MO of DCB Legal.

With respect, I haven't said anything about the debt collector letter being any different to the rest. I was specifically asking for advice around potential breeches of POFA in the NTK, and whether or now the signage stating I must register my vehicle on arrival (as a hedge against being unable to identify the alleged carpark) would be a strong point for them.

F1rst_Parking_Fanboy

KeithP said:

Coupon-mad said:

If there are 2 threads about this same bog standard PCN then we should ask the Forum Team to merge them. One thread, one case.

This is the OP's fourth thread, but the first three - including all the advice and guidance therein - have simply vanished.

They were removed as they contained my personal information. Mystery solved. 

F1rst_Parking_Fanboy

LDast said:

Unredact the dates!!!!!!!!!

However, the NtK does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge as required in paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

This was the kind of advice I was looking for, much appreciated.

Gr1pr

Pofa does not protect the driver,  it's mostly useful for a non driving keeper case

Pofa isnt relevant to the contractual signs,  the BPA CoP and law apply for contractual agreements 

If FP issue a court claim,  probably via a legal company,  within the next 6 years,  you will have to select one of 3 options for the ending to paragraph 2 in the defence template  by coupon mad,  in announcements 

F1rst_Parking_Fanboy

Gr1pr said:

Pofa does not protect the driver,  it's mostly useful for a non driving keeper case

Pofa isnt relevant to the contractual signs,  the BPA CoP and law apply for contractual agreements 

If FP issue a court claim,  probably via a legal company,  within the next 6 years,  you will have to select one of 3 options for the ending to paragraph 2 in the defence template  by coupon mad,  in announcements 

The driver hasn't been identified hence I as the keeper am relying on a pofa breech for whenever the court case arrives. 

Gr1pr

What would your truthful reply be if questioned in that actual civil court   ?

If you were both keeper and driver,  paragraph 2 in the defence template would say so

If you were not the driver,  just the keeper,  then your stance might work 

LDast

For heavens sake, it is not for the judge to do the claimants work for them. 

If the defendant chooses not to identify the driver, their legal obligations do not change simply because the judge asks the same question. I have not yet heard of any case where the judge has intervened to directly ask the defendant whether they were the driver or not because it is not for them to do so. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

As clearly pointed out in VCS v Edward, at no point was the defendant asked whether they were the driver and all the defendant did was reiterate that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but pointed out that the claimant had failed to adopt the appropriate procedure for pursuing the registered keeper, namely, that prescribed by schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In the incredibly unlikely event that the judge would directly ask the defendant whether they were the driver or not, all the defendant has to do is remind the judge that they are under no legal obligation to answer that question and it is up to the claimant to prove the defendant was the driver if they are not relying on PoFA.

Also, it is not "...mostly useful for a non driving keeper case". It is useful in ANY case where there is a PoFA failure by the claimant. As the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver, even if they were the driver, then as long as they understand that the Keeper and the driver are separate legal entities and only refer to the driver in the third person, then a PoFA failure is incredibly useful. 

F1rst_Parking_Fanboy

LDast said:

For heavens sake, it is not for the judge to do the claimants work for them. 

If the defendant chooses not to identify the driver, their legal obligations do not change simply because the judge asks the same question. I have not yet heard of any case where the judge has intervened to directly ask the defendant whether they were the driver or not because it is not for them to do so. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

As clearly pointed out in VCS v Edward, at no point was the defendant asked whether they were the driver and all the defendant did was reiterate that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but pointed out that the claimant had failed to adopt the appropriate procedure for pursuing the registered keeper, namely, that prescribed by schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In the incredibly unlikely event that the judge would directly ask the defendant whether they were the driver or not, all the defendant has to do is remind the judge that they are under no legal obligation to answer that question and it is up to the claimant to prove the defendant was the driver if they are not relying on PoFA.

Also, it is not "...mostly useful for a non driving keeper case". It is useful in ANY case where there is a PoFA failure by the claimant. As the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver, even if they were the driver, then as long as they understand that the Keeper and the driver are separate legal entities and only refer to the driver in the third person, then a PoFA failure is incredibly useful. 

🔥🔥🔥 Cheers

Gr1pr

I never mentioned the judge 

Advocates or lawyers or claimants can ask for permission from the judge to ask questions of a defendant as witness number 1, there are numerous feedback reports of it happening in the last decade  ( Ldast does have valid points apart from this one part  ), but we disagree on a few aspects of system anyway,  agreeing to disagree previously 

One top 3  case was Lamoureaux vs Burgess,  a bruising encounter some time ago, like cage fighters,  not the only time J.B has been present in court either , he doesn't just sit in his office  ( neither does the owner of SIP  )

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5490298/me-and-excel-at-war/p11

Sip (  owner is  H Anwar  )  do their own litigation and have asked these questions in court before,  as the claimant,  usually in Manchester court,  their local one

For over a decade I have seen reports of it happening, and have asked SRA registered solicitors if it happens,  so although the VCS VS Edward case details above may counter it for a well prepared defendant witness, or a knowledgeable judge, it doesn't prevent the advocate or employee or claimant from asking for permission to question a defendant about the topic of the driver

I dont intend to carry on with the disagreement,  and have told him this previously , we also disagree over the 5 days following the issue date on a claim form saga, but he knows that I agree with KeithP on that topic

I know that it still happens,  the right to question is still there,  the judge will decide on relevance or if the Edwards case is significant or not