London Aquatics Centre - Parking Eye - Urgent Defence

doubledotcom

Too bad you blabbed the drivers identity by not referring to the the driver in the third person only.

Kaziyyah said:

...On the day in question, I made the parking payment via the kiosk, which showed as successful in my wallet application.

...As a regular user of this car park, I have always paid the required parking fees.

...I had every intention of complying with the parking regulations, and this was an unintentional error caused by factors beyond my control.

If only you'd said "the driver made the parking payment..." or "the driver always paid the fee..." or "the driver had every intention of complying...". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

Kaziyyah

doubledotcom said:

Too bad you blabbed the drivers identity by not referring to the the driver in the third person only.

Kaziyyah said:

...On the day in question, I made the parking payment via the kiosk, which showed as successful in my wallet application.

...As a regular user of this car park, I have always paid the required parking fees.

...I had every intention of complying with the parking regulations, and this was an unintentional error caused by factors beyond my control.

If only you'd said "the driver made the parking payment..." or "the driver always paid the fee..." or "the driver had every intention of complying...". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

 

I’m literally kicking myself 😭😭😭

Gr1pr

Carry on defending though, regardless,  because its a process so you have deadlines to meet,  words to write etc

Kaziyyah

Thanks everyone, I am going to have to send my defence in now so I will carry on with the process as normal. I still think I should have a strong case based off the Facts of my defence, and any reasonable judge should conclude that the misunderstanding happened due to factors beyond my control (I hope anyway).

Just stressful going through this long process.

Question: since I have basically admitted to being the driver - can i still use the Pofa paragraphs? 

Gr1pr

Kaziyyah said:

Thanks everyone, I am going to have to send my defence in now so I will carry on with the process as normal. I still think I should have a strong case based off the Facts of my defence, and any reasonable judge should conclude that the misunderstanding happened due to factors beyond my control (I hope anyway).

Just stressful going through this long process.

Question: since I have basically admitted to being the driver - can i still use the Pofa paragraphs? 

No, POFA2012 doesn't help an admitted driver 

Its more a case of keeper protection when the driver hasn't been identified,  especially if the claimant failed the POFA2012 tests

Or

If they have complied with POFA requirements on relevant land,  they can try to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper,  even if the non driving keeper was in Shanghai at the time 

Kaziyyah

@Gr1pr
@doubledotcom
@Coupon-mad
@Le_Kirk
@Crabby

If anyone has time to read my defence before I submit it - please let me know if it makes legal sense:

1.     The Claimant’s sparse case fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16PD3& 7. It does not state the facts needed to form a complete cause of action. The Defendant denies liability for the sum claimed or any part thereof and invites the court to strike the claim out under CPR 3.4.

2.     The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant notes that on 16 June 2025, a parking payment for the vehicle was made at the London Aquatics Centre using the on-site kiosk via the Defendant’s iPhone wallet, which displayed the payment as successful. The Defendant frequently uses this car park and has regular proof of payment. The kiosk often fails to print receipts and has a history of faults. Any alleged non-payment arose from a technical failure outside the Defendant’s control.

3.     After the PCN was received, the site’s General Manager confirmed that a request for cancellation had been sent to the Claimant. The continued pursuit of this case despite that request shows lack of authority to litigate and unreasonable conduct.

4.     The Claimant has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The London Aquatics Centre lies within the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, governed by statutory by-laws and not “relevant land” for POFA purposes. Accordingly, no liability can pass to the registered keeper. The Defendant makes no formal admission as to driver identity. Any earlier informal correspondence was written without legal knowledge and should not be treated as binding.

5.     To form a contract there must be a clear offer, acceptance and consideration. The Claimant’s signage was neither prominent nor transparent, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s 62 & Sch 2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that its terms were fair and visible.

6.     DVLA data is released only where an operator holds written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of such authority, including the full contract, its scope and dates.

7.     This charge is penal and unenforceable. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is distinguished; signage there was clear and the £85 charge proportionate. The present claim is inflated by false “admin” or “debt recovery” fees, contrary to ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB).

8.     The claim also conflicts with the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and government findings that DRA fees are excessive and profit-driven.

9.     The delay in bringing proceedings has caused prejudice to the Defendant in retrieving records. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs under CPR 27.14 and asks the court to find the Claimant’s behaviour unreasonable under CPR 46.5.

10.  The Defendant denies the claim in full and respectfully requests that it be struck out or dismissed based on the statutory and procedural flaws identified in Paragraphs 3 and 4.

Kaziyyah

Gr1pr said:

Kaziyyah said:

Thanks everyone, I am going to have to send my defence in now so I will carry on with the process as normal. I still think I should have a strong case based off the Facts of my defence, and any reasonable judge should conclude that the misunderstanding happened due to factors beyond my control (I hope anyway).

Just stressful going through this long process.

Question: since I have basically admitted to being the driver - can i still use the Pofa paragraphs? 

No, POFA2012 doesn't help an admitted driver 

Its more a case of keeper protection when the driver hasn't been identified,  especially if the claimant failed the POFA2012 tests

Or

If they have complied with POFA requirements on relevant land,  they can try to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper,  even if the non driving keeper was in Shanghai at the time 

Sorry I saw this after I posted the above.

Someone told me that if I have only identified myself in an informal appeal as a driver, I can still make the legal standing 'The defendant is the registered keeper but does not admit to being the driver.' because previous admission is not binding....

Does this sound right?

Gr1pr

Kaziyyah said:

Gr1pr said:

Kaziyyah said:

Thanks everyone, I am going to have to send my defence in now so I will carry on with the process as normal. I still think I should have a strong case based off the Facts of my defence, and any reasonable judge should conclude that the misunderstanding happened due to factors beyond my control (I hope anyway).

Just stressful going through this long process.

Question: since I have basically admitted to being the driver - can i still use the Pofa paragraphs? 

No, POFA2012 doesn't help an admitted driver 

Its more a case of keeper protection when the driver hasn't been identified,  especially if the claimant failed the POFA2012 tests

Or

If they have complied with POFA requirements on relevant land,  they can try to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper,  even if the non driving keeper was in Shanghai at the time 

Sorry I saw this after I posted the above.

Someone told me that if I have only identified myself in an informal appeal as a driver, I can still make the legal standing 'The defendant is the registered keeper but does not admit to being the driver.' because previous admission is not binding....

Does this sound right?

No idea, but that someone wasn't me 

I can and do answer anything I can help with, but sometimes you need legal advice about topics and wordings, but most volunteers here don't posess that type of expertise. Those of us who reply do so as gratis,  free , hoping that we help the person asking,  but no guarantees 

Coupon-mad

I've been on holiday a long way away, but why didn't you just copy another ParkingEye defence talking about the added £30?

Clearly these defence have been done hundreds of times for PEye claims, always mentioning the added £30. Search the forum.

Kaziyyah

Coupon-mad said:

I've been on holiday a long way away, but why didn't you just copy another ParkingEye defence talking about the added £30?

Clearly these defence have been done hundreds of times for PEye claims, always mentioning the added £30. Search the forum.

I took them out because I was advised I could not use any of the Pofa paragraphs. Can I still add it in? I am so confused....