Claim form Gladstones

BikingBud

I am considering keeper liability and will ensure that the Parking Charge Notice issued complies with Section 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Do they really mean Section 4 to the POFA 2012?

Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4 relates to Persons arrested for or charged with a minor offence

There is Schedule 4 - "Recovery of unpaid parking charges"

Section (2) (e) of PoFA 2012 states, ‘’state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;’

There is no Section 2 (e ) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 - there is a Paragraph 8 (2) (e)

8 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

It might seem petty and it seems bit Red Dwarf, where Kryten continually correct Rimmer about his misidentification of Regulation, but it is important and they really should know their business better!

Coupon-mad

I think the pictured NTK is sufficient for a judge to consider it is POFA compliant.

I don't understand what the OP means by asking if their para 9 covers the point I advised to include, which should be in para 3.

Para 9 of the template defence isn't meant to be changed or removed.

GladysStone

ok 2nd draft for paragraph 3 all other paragraphs are unchanged

The Claimant's own documentation contains material inconsistencies. The original Horizon Parking notice issued in respect of the alleged incident stated a parking charge of £70, subject to the stated discounted amount. A subsequent reminder demanded £80,the claim form states £80.Accordingly, insofar as the Claimant relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4, the sum claimed exceeds the statutory maximum recoverable from the keeper under paragraph 4(5). The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal basis upon which it seeks £80 from the Defendant and £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions. In following the Pre action protocol, defendant asked for disclosure of documents regarding the car park management plan. (It is understood that planning and management documentation associated with Millennium Retail Park Greenwich has specified that initial overstays would receive warning notices rather than immediate parking charge notices). Also contemporaneous photographs of the inadequate signage at the entrance to the retail park. Under 5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must – (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request. Gladstones sent, with these remarks “Please find attached the Evidence Pack which we trust to be self-explanatory”. This contained the original pcn only. Furthermore, the defendant disputes the notion that the signage at the Tesco car park creates a binding contractual agreement for the imposition of a parking charge notice (PCN) of £70, as suggested by the claimant. The entrance signs fail to adequately inform motorists of any clear contractual terms fine amount or the consequences for failing to comply, and therefore do not create an enforceable contract. Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be struck out due to these deficiencies in both evidence and legal basis.

Gr1pr

Try to shorten it, because its long, but should be concise, also because it has to fit into the 122 lines allowed on MCOL

Also

Get rid of the "double air quotes" because they are not allowed on MCOL, replace with '

Coupon-mad

And remove this line:

A subsequent reminder demanded £80,

GladysStone

Would this be better?

The Claimant’s own documents contain material inconsistencies. The original Notice to Keeper stated a parking charge of £70, whereas the Claim Form seeks £80. If the Claimant relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), paragraph 4(5) limits recovery from the keeper to the
amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of the legal basis for the additional £10 and the further £70 described as contractual costs. The Defendant requested further information and documents under the Pre-Action Protocol, including the site management/planning documentation and contemporaneous evidence of the entrance signage. Gladstones responded only by providing an evidence pack, which contained the original PCN and did not provide the requested documents or explain their absence. The Defendant disputes that the signage formed a sufficiently clear contractual offer capable of imposing a £70 parking charge. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the prominence of the parking charge at the entrance and the signage in place on the material date.

Gr1pr

Still has air quotes in it ( banned on MCOL, as i mentioned earlier . )

GladysStone

I will never be a proof reader lol, thanks Gr1pr

paragraph 3

The original Notice to Keeper stated a parking charge of £70, whereas the Claim Form seeks £80. If the Claimant relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), paragraph 4(5) limits recovery from the keeper to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of the legal basis for the additional £10 and the further £70 described as contractual costs. The Defendant requested further information and documents under the Pre-Action Protocol, including the site management/planning documentation which explains that the 1st offence will be dealt by a warning letter and contemporaneous evidence of the entrance signage. Gladstones responded only by providing an evidence pack, which contained the original PCN and did not provide the requested documents or explain their absence. The Defendant disputes that the signage formed a sufficiently clear contractual offer capable of imposing a £70 parking charge. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the prominence of the parking charge at the entrance and the signage in place on the material date.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to go (within all ten paragraphs).

This (below) is very interesting. What proof do you have (show us please as it may help others) and where exactly is this location:

"the site management/planning documentation which explains that the 1st offence will be dealt by a warning letter".

GladysStone

Thank you for the replies.

I was doing some internet background research on who owns the land and came across these docs on the royal borough of Greenwich website.

The car park management plan, enforcement paragraph 13 onwards. I could not find out anymore as I still don't know who is landowner having asked them 2 or 3 times now. So not sure if its been updated.