Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 25th Oct 18, 12:27 AM
    • 33Posts
    • 23Thanks
    DammitChloe
    PPS - dark car park
    • #1
    • 25th Oct 18, 12:27 AM
    PPS - dark car park 25th Oct 18 at 12:27 AM
    Hi All from another PPS newbie!

    What a fantastic resource this forum is, great to see so many knowledgeable people helping others who get bullied by these companies. Hoping the hive will be able to give me a few tips too, for which I will be extremely grateful.

    My vehicle received a windscreen ticket in spring 2015. Pay and display car park, very poorly lit, after dark. Photos on the PCN are so dark the outline of the vehicle cannot be seen. I have been to the car park in the last few days, both in daylight and darkness, and taken photos. At the moment there are no lights whatsoever in the car park or on any of the signs, except for the glow from windows of a neighbouring business and a spotlight on the wall of the car park next door. One sign could be lit if a spotlight was actually on, but this could still easily be missed.

    I have been contacted as keeper by PPS and the chain that follows, as unfortunately I was advised to ignore everything. Most of it went in the bin. A few weeks ago I received the LBCCC from BWL, which I now know should have been acted upon, but my mother had just received a terminal diagnosis and it was the last thing on my mind. It was only two pages long, one of which was the 'how to pay' section, and didn't have the other documents that my research tells me should have been included. I received claim forms dated less than a week ago and acknowledged these. I've been reading as much as possible on here to construct a defence and I think some of Matilda13's would work for my case. Kudos to everyone who helped construct that one! I've used it as a very rough template, making a few changes, highlighting bits in red that I don't think will apply and mentioning things that I'm not sure about in green. I realise the numbers are wrong! Would someone who speaks legalese mind casting an eye over it please?

    Thanks in advance for your time.

    1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim whilst providing minimal information to the Defendant.

    1.1 Having been provided with photos of the car parked, it is not clear that the photos are of the same location as that cited on the alleged parking offence due to conditions of total darkness.

    1.2 The defendant is in possession of only very vague details of Particulars of Claim (POC). Any contractual agreement - and thus any breach - is denied.

    3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being a driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

    Not sure if I can use POFA in any way, but the enemy only has keeper details.

    3.1 By providing inaccurate detail regarding the location of the alleged offence the claimant has not complied with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 both in relation to paragraph 7 subsection 2 A, and paragraph 8 subsection 2.

    4.1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    I received the LBCCC, but it was just the standard BWL front page and ‘how to pay’ on the back with no documents as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Would 4.1 still apply, with a bit of re-wording?

    4.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving, and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases, that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.
    Not sure what the compliant documents are, but I think this applies?

    5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful POC and lack of any previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.

    5. Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP).
    Should I add ‘unlit’ to the description of the signage?

    5.1. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.

    6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.

    7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    8. Prior to any court hearing the Defendant has sent the Claimant a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the following, and to date has only received a response to 8.1 (iii) below:

    8.1.
    (i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.
    (ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.
    (iii) copies of any letters sent, including the original PCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
    (iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.
    9. The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.
    I will send a SAR and amend this bit accordingly, unless one of the experts on here advises anything different.

    10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
    Solicitor’s fees are on the Notice of Claim, and contractual fees are on the claim form, but there’s nothing about damages, so not sure if this applies?

    10.1. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.


    10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

    10.3. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

    10.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

    11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim and allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.

    12. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.





Page 3
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 2nd Nov 18, 12:36 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    No because they were not required to adhere to the POFA.

    Parking firms can still get DVLA data to 'enquire who was driving' in a non POFA case.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Ah, I see. I'm still unclear about how much to involve the ICO in my case specifically. If I ask them to carry out anything more than a general investigation into the PPC, does it not give the PPC the opportunity to simply provide the information and blame an oversight, as you mentioned in your other post on the matter?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Nov 18, 12:39 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I still reckon go for the ICO complaint now. Either they have a copy of the PCN or they don't, and if they do it will be in the evidence later anyway.

    Also I feel that PPS are issuing a pile of claims where they might discontinue the ones in the ''too difficult'' pile (they already discontinued one, a week after the defence went in), so I believe in attacking these thug ex-clamper firms from all angles.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 2nd Nov 18, 12:57 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    I like that strategy! I'll round up the paragraph I posted in #38 by asking the ICO to investigate the whereabouts of my missing information. I don't imagine these things get acted upon particularly quickly anyway.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Nov 18, 1:29 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I don't imagine these things get acted upon particularly quickly anyway.
    You are right, they don't, people are reporting getting an acknowledgement and apology that investigations will take months due to the GDPR and more complaints.

    So it may not even hit PPS until later...but it will hit them at some point!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 5th Nov 18, 1:23 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    I’d be very grateful if the experts would spare a moment to cast an eye over my latest attempt at a Defence. I have changed quite a bit as more information has now come to light. The document that I assumed to be the LBC, with required bits missing, is actually notice that a claim was issued. The confusion arose because of the long delay due to Northampton not sending the claim forms out (which reminds me, I need to check that my credit rating hasn’t been affected – can I make a claim for distress and hassle caused by their mistake?). After digging through some papers, I’ve found the LBC. Unfortunately a lot of paperwork has been left unattended this summer due to personal circumstances which I mentioned in my original post. This letter does appear to include the Pre-Action Protocol paperwork and ‘Particulars of Debt’ are as follows:

    On (date) you were granted a limited contractual licence to enter the land known as (“Site”), which is managed and operated by Our Client. In return, you were to abide by certain terms and conditions (“Terms and Conditions”) which were prominently displayed on the signage erected in situ by Our Client. On (same date) you breached the Terms and Conditions by No Valid Ticket Or Permit Displayed (“Breach”). The Breach resulted in Our Client issuing a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) on (same date) which, despite our client’s attempts to engage with you and agree a suitable payment arrangement, remains unpaid.

    This is followed by a summary statement which is dated from the event to the date of the letter. It has a Principal Balance of £130, with no mention of the original £100, and Total Debt Recovery Costs of £60. On the previous page it states Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs £190, Estimated Interest XXXX, Estimated Court Fees £25.00, Estimated Solicitors Costs £50.

    I mentioned before that the POC are standard BWL stuff, but I’ve since seen a few slightly different ones so have added the exact wording here so the experts have the complete picture. The POC on the claim form are as follows:

    The Claimant’s Claim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on (date) at (location)
    The PCN relates to (vehicle) under registration xxxx. The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
    The Claim also includes Statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from (date) to (date more than 3 ½ years later) being an amount of xxxx.
    The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.


    The statement is ‘signed’ by ‘BW Legal Services Limited’ in text (is that even legal on an official document?) and the total amount is over £260. The two documents do not seem to match up at all. As a scientist, the lack of a unit for the 0.02 annoys me almost as much as three and a half years’ worth of interest!!

    The facts of what actually happened on the night of the event are that the driver didn’t see the signs because the signage and lighting is atrocious, and I have photos to show this. The vehicle was parked for no more than 5 minutes while the driver nipped into the adjacent shop. There is ample free parking in the area which would have been used if the driver had been aware that they were entering a ‘pay & display’, as there was no intention to leave the vehicle for any length of time. The PPC are not aware of the identity of the driver.

    This is my current draft Defence, but I’m not sure whether I need to change or add anything due to the aforementioned details from BWL being discovered. I’ve included my queries in green and correspondence from PPS/BWL in red.

    1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim whilst providing minimal information to the Defendant.

    1.1. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    2. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful Particulars of Claim (POC) and lack of previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.

    2.1. Signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear, not prominent, inadequately lit during darkness and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP).

    2.2. The Claimant further breached the BPA rules (which were deemed 'effectively regulatory' by the Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case) by issuing a predatory PCN within minutes and failing to place clear signs with adequate notice of the parking charge.

    2.3 The BPA CoP states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”. The vehicle in question was on site for a few minutes at most.

    2.4. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.

    3. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

    4.1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with the POFA para 8 in every respect as there is no 8(2)f wording or anything else from the mandatory wording.

    4.2. The Notice to Keeper neither meets para 8 nor para 9 of the POFA, which was considered to be a scam as outed by Watchdog.

    Not sure if It is appropriate to borrow your words (4.1. and 4.2.) for use in a Defence Coupon-mad, or whether the language is only suitable for this forum?
    Also could someone please check the facts for me regarding the PPC’s POFA compliance, as in addition to the NTK details posted in #15 I later realised that the following information is included on the back:


    Notes for Guidance: Failure to supply the information may result in a claim being issued against you personally if you are the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    Section A), very similar to B) but for those who are not the registered keeper.

    B) If you were the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle mentioned overleaf on the date and time of contravention, complete section B below, stating the name and address of the driver at the date and time of contravention. You must sign this form below and send it back by return post.

    Section B (Statement) □ (tick box)
    I was not the driver at the time and date of the contravention.
    Driver (then name, address, etc)

    Appeal Information
    Any driver lodging an appeal later than 14 days from the date of this letter will be liable to pay the full amount if their appeal is unsuccessful. If your appeal is unsuccessful you have the opportunity to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). PPS will provide details of the IAS at the appropriate time. You cannot appeal to the IAS before an initial appeal with PPS is unsuccessful, or at the reduced amount. The IAS will only process your appeal at the higher amount. You must appeal within 28 days of this letter.
    NB: If, as keeper of the vehicle, you do not give the details about the driver or hirer, or if the driver or hirer refuses to acknowledge their liability, you may be liable to pay any unpaid charges in accordance with the POFA 2012. Please be advised that if the IAS has dismissed your appeal, we, PPS, will use this adjudication in future court proceedings, which may commence without delay and further costs will be added.


    Sorry about my oversight in not spotting this earlier, I hope it doesn’t affect any of the previous advice that you have all so kindly given. I am also now slightly confused about an earlier post saying that the timing would kill keeper liability. The NTK is dated just under 7 weeks after the date the windscreen ticket was placed, so that is less than 56 days. Am I missing something here?

    5. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    Do I need to change any of this in light of what is mentioned in the LBC, or would the information still be non-compliant and insufficient to properly understand the charge?

    6. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.

    7. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.

    8. Prior to any court hearing the Defendant has sent the Claimant a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the following, and to date has received only a partial response.

    8.1.
    (i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.
    (ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.
    (iii) copies of any letters sent, including the original PCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
    (iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.

    9. The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.

    10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    10.1. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.

    10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

    10.3. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

    10.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

    11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim and allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.

    12. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date

    I’m conscious of the fact that this is very ‘copied and pasted’, but it is difficult to be original when legal terminology seems like a foreign language! Obviously the final draft will also be put into the correct format. Thanks again to all who give up their precious time to help with this kind of thing.
    Last edited by DammitChloe; 05-11-2018 at 1:29 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Nov 18, 1:51 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The statement is ‘signed’ by ‘BW Legal Services Limited’ in text (is that even legal on an official document?)
    Yes for a solicitor firm.

    Use 4.1 and 4.2 but remove this which makes no sense here:
    which was considered to be a scam as outed by Watchdog.

    5. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    Do I need to change any of this in light of what is mentioned in the LBC, or would the information still be non-compliant and insufficient to properly understand the charge?
    Remove the bit in bold, and leave the rest in, if it is true to say that you ''have no idea'' what this is about...not sure that's true!


    Sorry about my oversight in not spotting this earlier, I hope it doesn’t affect any of the previous advice that you have all so kindly given. I am also now slightly confused about an earlier post saying that the timing would kill keeper liability. The NTK is dated just under 7 weeks after the date the windscreen ticket was placed, so that is less than 56 days. Am I missing something here?
    I think it was served in the right period of time but sounds like the wording does not meet para 8 or 9 (you can check that yourself, it is easy!).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-11-2018 at 6:50 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 5th Nov 18, 2:15 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    I was looking at the CoP from 2014, as the event was in 2015, but I’ll double check the wording. I’ll change the bit about not knowing what the charge is about, if that refers to knowing details of what actually happened. I thought it referred to not knowing about the full terms and conditions etc. Thanks for clarifying.
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 7th Nov 18, 6:46 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    Hopefully I'm just about organised with the Defence. I checked the October 2014 CoP and the grace period wording is correct. I've revised a couple of points as follows and just have a couple of last queries:

    4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters with mandatory wording.

    4.1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with the POFA para 8 in every respect as there is no 8(2)f wording or anything else from the mandatory wording.

    I like to think that I’m reasonably good with words, but I’m still not 100% sure whether I can say ‘or anything else from the mandatory wording’. Is the PPC supposed to stick to the wording ‘word for word’ or are they just required to convey the information? I’m confident that the NTK doesn’t meet 8(2)f, but it seems to vaguely allude to some of the other points in a confusing, disjointed and non-explicit fashion. CM, unless you’re absolutely sure this still applies after I posted the extra information on the back of the NTK, I don’t feel confident enough to include it.

    4.2. The Notice to Keeper neither meets para 8 nor para 9 of the POFA.

    5. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol and the Defendant received minimal details about what the alleged contract was.

    Can I change 5 to this, as the LBC simply refers to the T&Cs being on the signage but gives no details? Could I word it more strongly? I haven't had time to examine all the details of pre-court protocol so would really appreciate an expert opinion.

    Is there anything else that I've overlooked which could strengthen my Defence? Thanks once again for all your help.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Nov 18, 7:15 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well, I am not seeing (in the front or back wording) much of this at all:

    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—

    (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; maybe

    (b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; it does not say that the driver is liable in the first instance

    (c) 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); Nope?

    (d) if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part...
    [SNIPPED THIS AS N/A],

    (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; NOPE

    (f) warn the keeper that - [SNIPPED] THIS MANDATORY KEEPER LIABILITY WARNING IS NOT THERE

    (g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available; lack of info about complaints

    (h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made; nope, the creditor could be the landowner

    (i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). maybe
    unless you’re absolutely sure this still applies after I posted the extra information on the back of the NTK, I don’t feel confident enough to include it.
    OK, so change it to:

    4.1. The Notice to Keeper ('NTK') is non-compliant with the POFA para 8, due to the omission of mandatory wording. These omissions include - but are not limited to - the omission of the prescribed 8(2)f wording to warn the keeper about the 'keeper liability' provisions in the Act and set out the statutory timeline, as well as a failure to identify the creditor and/or to inform the keeper that the driver is in fact the only party liable at the time of receiving the NTK, and to ask the keeper to pass the Notice to the driver.
    I would remove this, below, as para 9 does not apply to a windscreen PCN:
    4.2. The Notice to Keeper neither meets para 8 nor para 9 of the POFA.
    Can I change 5 to this, as the LBC simply refers to the T&Cs being on the signage but gives no details? Could I word it more strongly? I haven't had time to examine all the details of pre-court protocol
    Yes that's fine, because a failure to comply with the PAP is not something to spend time on, it's not your defence and will not win the case in itself.

    Your defence seems to cover everything you need, and can be expanded on, at WS and evidence stage in the New Year before the hearing.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 7th Nov 18, 7:48 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    Fantastic, thanks CM, with that I think it's good to go. I have held back some stuff that is loosely covered by those points, but which will be much more damning in the WS. I just wasn't sure with things like the driver liability for example - at one point they say 'If payment is made...the drivers' liability will be discharged'. I have no experience with these things, I don't know how vague they can be and get away with it! Very reassuring to get an opinion from someone who deals with this kind of paperwork on a regular basis.
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 7th Nov 18, 8:12 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    Final (I hope!) question. A packet was placed on my vehicle, which was assumed to be a scam and thrown in the bin. Bearing in mind the results of the SAR, should I be referring to an 'alleged' PCN?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Nov 18, 2:03 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that sounds good, or something like 'purported windscreen PCN that was conspicuous by its absence in the data provided by the Claimant, in response to a subject access request on xx.xx.18'.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 8th Nov 18, 7:53 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    I was trying to cover my bases but keep it subtle, bearing in mind the comments earlier on this thread. Decisions, decisions, which way to play it!
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 10th Nov 18, 9:15 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    I notice on a thread very similar to mine, with a paragraph pretty much the same as my no. 4, Coupon now advises adding the Greenslade comment. I presume it would also work here if I add 'There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver'? Is that sufficient to be able to expand on at WS stage if I don't reference him by name now? I'm guessing the principle still applies even though he was referring to POPLA.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Nov 18, 9:25 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that is sufficient; as long as it's touched upon in a defence you can expand in the WS.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DammitChloe
    • By DammitChloe 10th Nov 18, 9:48 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DammitChloe
    Perfect, thanks Coupon. In my line of business, a quotation without a reference induces a cold sweat!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

181Posts Today

1,151Users online

Martin's Twitter