IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
NWCP Car Parks PCN - Over 28 days
Comments
-
Coupon-mad wrote: »I'm somewhat *busy* today but had a quick look and couldn't see the 8(2)f wording - the vital warning about liability they would need to include in any NTK, as you can find when you read para 8 of Schedule 4 which is linked in the NEWBIES thread post #1 (where it says about 'if you want to dig deeper').
Thanks. If you have time could you have a proper look. Just want to finish it off.
So I am 100% certain on dates. My claim form date is 24th March. What is the date I need to get my defence in by? Is it 28 days + 5 days? Is that 26th April? So 26th April is the my last day?0 -
How does this sound
Is the Defendant then liable as keeper under the provisions of POFA?
2. The Defendant admits that a keeper of a vehicle can be held liable for a charge issued to a driver of that vehicle.
3. Fatally to the Claimant’s case, the document which purports to be a POFA-compliant NtK, dated 9th December 2016 is not compliant because it is not compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 as per below
3.1 Paragraph 8 (2) (f) states “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given”. There is no such warning on the NtK.
3.2 Paragraph 8 (2) (c) says “state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f)”
The notice to driver was in the form of a windscreen ticket. The NtK must state a windscreen ticket was given. There is no such information on the NtK
4. It is clear that the Claimant has not complied with these conditions, and there is no legal basis whatsoever to enforce the parking charge against the Defendant as the registered keeper.
5. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver
3.2 - Is that correct. I have read on parkingcowboys website that notice to keeper must state
State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when
The NtK does not state a windscreen ticket was given so I have included 3.2
Please let me know what anyone thinks of the above. Seems coupon-mad is the only one replying. No other experts on this forum?0 -
pappa_golf wrote: »N+V IS Mr Rigby (and wife)
Sorry should have have mentioned this is just one of the my parts of defence. Just want to know if this part looks or not. The whole defense is quite long so il have to put as a dropbox link once finalised
Does directors sharing common directorship have any bearing or relevance in my case. Pappa Golf also indicated something similar as per quote0 -
Could someone confirm the date please so I'm certain.
Please see below my Defence added to Dropbox. I have mainly used what I felt relevant from other defences. I am unsure if any points are not relevant to this case. Would really appreciate someone with knowledge to look through and let me know if I should remove anything or not or even add. I do realise it is pretty long. Coupon-Mad - when you have time could you have a look. You can if you want edit the document and then post a link to the modified doc. Your help appreciated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83vti8xy7l169m7/Defence%20Summary.docx?dl=00 -
Could someone confirm the date and provide feedback to my defence please. Much appreciated as very close to my defence submission date0
-
My claim form date is 24th March. What is the date I need to get my defence in by? Is it 28 days + 5 days? Is that 26th April? So 26th April is the my last day?
Yes but I wouldn't push it to that day, or if you do, make sure the defence is emailed as a PDF to CCBC in the morning.
I would have:2. The Defendant [STRIKE]admits[/STRIKE] is fully aware that a keeper of a vehicle can potentially be held liable for a charge issued to a driver of that vehicle, but only in the event of strict and full compliance with the applicable statute. There is no other lawful way to hold a keeper liable for the actions of a driver on private land.3. Fatally to the Claimant’s case, the document which purports to be a POFA-compliant NtK, dated 9th December 2016 is not compliant [STRIKE]because it is not compliant[/STRIKE] with the requirements of Schedule 4 as [STRIKE]per[/STRIKE] detailed below
Yes, correct.3.2 - Is that correct. I have read on parkingcowboys website that notice to keeper must state
State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when
The NtK does not state a windscreen ticket was given so I have included 3.2
And from your main defence I would just make it clear that the reason you know about the signs and what they look like is you went to gather evidence (otherwise it implies the keeper might have been the driver after all):The Defendant makes the following points, having gathered evidence and considered the signage at this location:
8.1 The terms offered must be clear and unambiguous. They were not. The signage was cluttered, small and illegible to motorists,
Although much of point #13 makes a lot of sense, personally I would remove these arguments 13.4 and 13.5 because they don't make sense to me (post-Beavis case) and hand the claimant an advantage as they would be easy to argue against, using Beavis:13.4 A penalty is not a genuine representation of loss (as was found in OB Services v Thurlow, ParkingEye Ltd v Collins and Excel v Heatherington-Jakeman). The charge is clearly a penalty and an unfair consumer charge, because it cannot be a pre-estimate of loss and there is no commercial justification for it.
13.5 The court is referred to the tests set out in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd (1915) and Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia to determine if the sum is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages. In Beavis it was determined that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss because there was no direct loss to the Claimant.
Apart from that it looked well-argued (is it in the style of LoadsofChildren123's defence, it is familiar?).
You need a statement of truth and your signature and date at the end.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Yes but I wouldn't push it to that day, or if you do, make sure the defence is emailed as a PDF to CCBC in the morning.
What is the best method to send? How do people usually send these? Can you attach PDF's/documents on the moneyclaim website or do you email everything separately. What do you recommend doing and when. Just want to know how I proceed now and how to submit my defence.Coupon-mad wrote: »I would have:
Yes, correct.
And from your main defence I would just make it clear that the reason you know about the signs and what they look like is you went to gather evidence (otherwise it implies the keeper might have been the driver after all):
Although much of point #13 makes a lot of sense, personally I would remove these arguments 13.4 and 13.5 because they don't make sense to me (post-Beavis case) and hand the claimant an advantage as they would be easy to argue against, using Beavis:
Thank you so much for the pointing out the amendments it is much appreciated. I will make the amendments and thanks for thumbs up that the rest is good. Did spend time on it and wasn't sure if points were relevant to my case or not so wanted re-assurance.Coupon-mad wrote: »Apart from that it looked well-argued (is it in the style of LoadsofChildren123's defence, it is familiar?).
Yes it is similar to Loadsofchildren123 defence. That defence was awesome so had to do something similar.Coupon-mad wrote: »You need a statement of truth and your signature and date at the end.:)
Yes thanks still need to add.0 -
What is the best method to send? How do people usually send these?
Email the defence (one PDF, no attachments or evidence at this stage) to:
ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Copy yourself in to ensure its sent ok. Ring the court to confirm receipt.
No and nor does post #2 of the NEWBIES thread tell you to use MCOL again, only for the AOS. Not for the defence.Can you attach PDF's/documents on the moneyclaim websitePRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
In mine years back I was done in a "no parking at all, authorised vehicles only" area.
I argued in my (successful) appeal that there is no actual difference between an authorised and unauthorised vehicle, when it comes to loss!!
How does an authorised vehicle cause no loss, but an unauthorised one suddenly causes them loss, a parked vehicle either causes a loss or it does not regardless of permission.
This proves that unathorised vehicles do not cause loss, and the charge is punative and a penalty and does not arise from any loss!!0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Email the defence (one PDF, no attachments or evidence at this stage) to:
ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Copy yourself in to ensure its sent ok. Ring the court to confirm receipt.
No and nor does post #2 of the NEWBIES thread tell you to use MCOL again, only for the AOS. Not for the defence.
As it will be a PDF document does it need a signature? Can you insert your name as your signature?
No attachments - So does that mean I do not refer to my sign? Do I not include my sign as document? so just the PDF and nothing else. That would mean editing my defence to remove any references.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards