Disputed Parking Charge Britannia Parking Represented by BW Legal

flooredDesign

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040227#Comment_82040227

I would have to check those details but in essence, we did not respond to them at all. We did receive the PCN but contacted the Pub to get the ticket quashed. They promised on more than one occasion they would. Obviously we have no proof of this so could not enter it into the WS

Gr1pr

Should have been checked ages ago, and especially when their WS plus Exhibits bundle appeared

The basis of the defence has always been that the RK has no legal liability in law, which was probably the case from the original incident date years ago , 12/02/2023

flooredDesign

Thank you very much @Gr1pr for your help this evening. I feel a bit more resolve to see it through with the confidence you have in the process.

Gr1pr

IMHO, neither of you has any choice in the matter other than see it through to the final whistle

But what is important here is to understand the core facts in the case, flaws, warts, testimony, everything

I outlined a lot of the basic core facts in tonight's replies, but Car1980 explained it 6 months ago to you

B W Legal are working on behalf of Britannia Parking, not your wife, its their job to try to skew the case in favour of their client, not you

Ps, the fact that the pub tried to cancel the pcn due to you both being genuine customers should have been in the WS, regardless of no proof

Coupon-mad

"The registered keeper is not obliged to name the driver but, if they fail to do so before the claim is issued at Court, they may be held liable for the PCN.

19. The Claimant served its PCN in compliance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012"

They may say the above … but is it true?

Show us both sides of the NTK which you'll find is in their evidence bundle, if you've binned the original.

Car1980

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040235#Comment_82040235

You sign a statement of truth. Witness statements are regarded as always truthful. Proof and evidence helps, but if anybody says X the judge regards it as not a lie by default.

That isn't to say there will be agreement - the judge has to decide on the old "balance of probabilities" whose evidence is more compelling and who may be be embellishing, rather than lying.

The judge will probably ask you to take him/her through the incident. You can verbally tell them you were under the impression it had being cancelled because the landlord told you. And the answer to "it doesn't say that in the witness statement" would be "I don't have any evidence as it was verbal, so I didn't think I could include it. But they genuinely told me."

flooredDesign

It took a while to get back but managed to copy the PCN-NTK and the FR

flooredDesign

I think this is what you were referring to @Coupon-mad . We had binned the original but was in the Evidence bundle.

Coupon-mad

The pub saying "they'd cancelled it" is interesting but not a defence point to an alleged contract.

Poor signage is usually a possible winning point. Hidden keypad inside the premises? No agreed contract, then.

Also of course your wife has the point that the POC pleads no recovery costs £0 (hope you put that in the WS?).

That NTK is trying to make out it is served under POFA schedule 4 but on a quick glance, it fails to 'invite the keeper to pay' and it fails to state that 'the creditor doesn't have the name and address of the driver' so there is a valid legal argument there.

A ParkingEye case was won by a defendant on the above missing wording. Can anyone recall the case & transcript?

Castle

The POFA 2012 paragraph is transferring liability 1 day early.