N1SDT - Driver observed leaving site UKCPS

LadyHawke17

Hello, 

Long time lurker received a parking fine in March which I now have this claim to defend. Just wanted to ask for some advice on my defense.

- There is no photographic evidence of the driver leaving the site—only images of the parked car and signage. 

- The signage is unclear, conflicting since the site hosts three businesses; it states the car park is for One Below, which no longer exists (now One Beyond). This could suggest the signage is obsolete.
 
- There’s a receipt from One Beyond at 15:13, ticket issued at 15:02, and photos taken at 14:59—this may weaken the 'driver left the site' claim.

I am considering a subject access request to UKCPS, as their evidence appears limited to photos of the car and signage.

For my N1SDT defense, I plan to use the template on the sticky, referencing CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande; I’m also considering adding Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ibbotson (2012) due to their insufficient evidence of driver departure.

Is there anything further I could add or is the defense flimsy and perhaps I should pay the fine which now includes legal costs and court fees?

ChirpyChicken

1. It isnt a fine
2. You don't pay.
3. You dont need to do a subject access request. There will be no photos
You do a defence based around not leaving the site. Put them to strict proof 
You wont lose this case.

LadyHawke17

ChirpyChicken said:

1. It isnt a fine
2. You don't pay.
3. You dont need to do a subject access request. There will be no photos
You do a defence based around not leaving the site. Put them to strict proof 
You wont lose this case.

Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify - at no point have I ever said I was the driver of the car, and at no point do I ever say I was the driver of the car?

ChirpyChicken

LadyHawke17 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

1. It isnt a fine
2. You don't pay.
3. You dont need to do a subject access request. There will be no photos
You do a defence based around not leaving the site. Put them to strict proof 
You wont lose this case.

Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify - at no point have I ever said I was the driver of the car, and at no point do I ever say I was the driver of the car?

In this case you admit to driving and you deny leaving in full.

LadyHawke17

ChirpyChicken said:

LadyHawke17 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

1. It isnt a fine
2. You don't pay.
3. You dont need to do a subject access request. There will be no photos
You do a defence based around not leaving the site. Put them to strict proof 
You wont lose this case.

Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify - at no point have I ever said I was the driver of the car, and at no point do I ever say I was the driver of the car?

In this case you admit to driving and you deny leaving in full.

Would this be your recommendation if the driver did actually leave the site?

James_Poisson

LadyHawke17 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

In this case you admit to driving and you deny leaving in full.

Would this be your recommendation if the driver did actually leave the site?

Follow CC's advice you are over thinking this providing you are steadfast this will go nowhere, there will be no definition anywhere of "the site" and they will have no evidence of anyone leaving site, it's an add on scam.

If you are "a long time lurker" you will also know that these are not "fines" and that POC is just a bulk template that says nothing, it also includes an extra £70 that cannot be claimed.