FTMDave

That sounds promising. Please let us know when you hear anything further from Halfords or the horrible parking company. If you want help with the BP one please start a new thread.

Take that ECP!

Looks damn good to me. If you want make your comments about Tom's behaviour more precise I am also afraid that any “proportionality” already went out of the window when your bosses Tom and Nicola filed two applications with the court for extra time to file a defence that they had already prepared, threatened me with paying for their costs, and refused to accept their loss at MCOL for failing to file a defence, all of that over a £170 claim. It will be interesting to see how they will react. Presumably they will have the choice between spending a load of money travelling to court or else requesting that the court just decide on their papers with almost certain defeat.

The original invoice is the legal document all this revolves around. We need to see it. It's hard to defend yourself if you don't know what you're being accused of. Most people who don't have the original invoice are in that position because they moved. This regularly leads to court papers going to the wrong address and the motorist losing by default and getting a backdoor CCJ. That was why we were harping on about moving. Thanks for confirming he hasn't moved and is safe from this threat. However, what about the original invoice? Where is it? Did you SAR UKCPS in April as LFI suggested?

I'm in crash out mode too!

NO KEEPER LIABILITY section rewritten to include LFI's POFA arguments - No keeper liability 17. The claimant is suing the wrong person. I was not the driver on any of these three occasions. I informed the claimant's agents and solicitors of this on multiple occasions (EXHIBIT 5) before the court claim was issued and identified the driver. Yet the claimant carried on regardless and sued me. 18. In their Witness Statement para 21 the claimant’s solicitor states I did not nominate a driver "they would otherwise have nominated a driver". This is simply untrue. I have named the driver continually as shown in my exhibit of correspondence. 19. It beggars belief that the claimant's solicitor can state something which is clearly untrue after signing a Statement of Truth. Either this is due to dishonesty, or, much more likely, to using a copy & paste Witness Statement which always has a paragraph stating that the keeper did not name a driver. A Google search quickly shows that in witness statements various solicitors representing private parking companies regulalry use the same standard paragraph in their witness statements. One wonders what else is lazily copied & pasted and incorrect in the Witness Statement. 20. In any case the claimant has not respected Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. 21. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 deals with keeper liability. The Act requires that under Section 9[2]a] 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; The claimant's ANPR times on the PCNs include the time spent driving from the entrance to the parking space and from the parking space to the exit. These are not the parking times. 22. In the persuasive case - claim number K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court - 5 January 2024 - it was on this very point of the lack of inclusion of the period of parking that the judge dismissed the claim. 23. Secondly, the parking company must - Section 9[2][e] of the Act -(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; This wording is missing from the claimant's three PCNs. 24. These two failures mean that no keeper liability has been established.

This is all superb, except ... ... LFI's comments jar with what is immediately above when they are supposed to reinforce those points. That's easy enough to sort, and I'll do it now. Why have you attached the Appendix? To me it should be cut out. You've already tackled those arguments in Double Recovery which is a minor point anyway. As for POFA, Schedule 4 is fine. The rest of the act is irrelevant to parking matters. In fact you don't even need Schedule 4, you just need the pages with the parts that LFI quotes.

Get on to the CEO of Starbucks, lay it on thick about being a genuine customer, attach proof of purchase - and ask them to call off their dogs https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-82463 Starbucks went through a long period of being very cooperative and always getting invoices cancelled. Then, because there was a tsunami of cases for one scam car park, they stopped. Hopefully their bad attitude is only connected to that one car park. In any case, nothing ventured ...

LFI's magic doesn't need a new heading. It's a continuation of NO KEEPER LIABILITY. Basically hubby is arguing two points here (a) you can't sue me, I wasn't the driver, my wife was, I've told you a million times (my point), then (b) even I hadn't told you your paperwork is pants and hasn't followed the law to establish keeper liability (LFI's points). Keep the other sections as they are at the moment. If anything needs to be moved round we can do it after a final draft.

SUGGESTED CHANGES 3 (THE LAST!) Please note a new paragraph in blue in bold six posts up. The NO KEEPER LIABILITY section - No keeper liability 17. The claimant is suing the wrong person. I was not the driver on any of these three occasions. I informed the claimant's agents and solicitors of this on multiple occasions (EXHIBIT 5) before the court claim was issued and identified the driver. Yet the claimant carried on regardless and sued me. - is fine but it needs to be extended. 18. In their Witness Statement para 21 the claimant’s solicitor states I did not nominate a driver "they would otherwise have nominated a driver". This is simply untrue. I have named the driver continually as shown in my exhibit of correspondence. 19. It beggars belief that the claimant's solicitor can state something which is clearly untrue after signing a Statement of Truth. Either this is due to dishonesty, or, much more likely, to using a copy & paste Witness Statement which always has a paragraph stating that the keeper did not name a driver. One wonders what else is lazily copied & pasted and incorrect in the Witness Statement. 20. In any case the claimant has not respected Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. 23. CONTINUE WITH LFI's POFA MAGIC To me that is enough. When you want e-mail to the court and copy to DCBL. In the subject heading write the claim no. & the names of the parties & the words "Witness Statement". Click on "return receipt". I'm aware that LFI and I have sent you a mountain of last-minute stuff so if you want to upload a last draft go for it. I for one have the evening free now.

Tell Tom to go and flip himself. "For the sake of proportionality"!!! Aye, this from the bloke who made two applications to the court to allow extra time to prepare a defence which was already prepared in a claim for £167.

Last bit coming up ...

SUGGESTED CHANGES 2 Your NO LOCUS STANDI section needs to be rewritten as they have included a contract. However, as it is so rubbish you can really stick the boot in. How about - No Locus Standi 15. The Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the Landowner or Lessor of the relevant land to the Claimant. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Companies House lists their company number as 01270612) to issue private PCNs or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are/were, and whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to issue PCNs on behalf of’ the landowner on an agency basis. 16. The defendant asked to see the claimant's contact with the landowner that authorises them to bring legal claims in their own name by CPR 31:14 request but they never replied (EXHIBIT 7). 17. Finally in Exhibit 1 of their Witness Statement the claimant has produced a contract. it is laughable. Nine of the 15 pages are completely redacted. It is impossible to know how much information about mitigating circumstances, grace periods, appeals, etc., has been hidden by the claimant. 18. The Defendant was surprised by the almost total redaction of the Contract rendering it a nonentity and this is confirmed by the eradication of the directors' names and there being no witnesses to the signatories (witnesses are required by law). There is nothing in the contract that allows the Claimant to pursue the Defendant through the Courts nor add an exorbitant £70 to the original PCN. LFI's magic included. More in another mo after reading through their silly WS.

SUGGESTED CHANGES 1 OK. Here I am at long last. Long day at work today (which I deserve after being on holiday for a week ). 1. In the part The full fees for each of the above dates was paid at the time, which amounted to £1.30, £2.30 and £1.40.and £1.40. All of these were paid via the app (EXHIBIT 2) make damn sure you have bank statements proving you paid. 3. In the part The Defendant informed the Claimant as soon as the notices were received, about the wrong reg being incorrectly entered and that payment had been made. This was by telephone and then subsequently by emails (EXHIBIT 5) make damn sure you have all the correspondence with ECP or their agents all in chronological order. That way you can refer to these proofs time & again in your WS. 3. To conclude the DE MINIMIS section you can refer to the Baroness Walmsley case and point out that although it was for a statutory Penalty Charge Notice the court still found that her mistake was "de minimis". Quote the case I found for a private PCN as another persuasive case where the judge agreed. This part - Defective PCN and Particulars of Claim 12. On both the three PCNs and in the Particulars of Claim it is written “Reason: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased”. 13. This is incorrect. Payment was made on all three occasions. It is inconceivable that the defendant did not realise this at the time of issuing the invoices. In any case the claimant and their representatives had been informed multiple times by myself (the defendant) before the claim form was issued 14. The claimant is citing a reason for claimant that does not exist. - is unclear and it's my fault. Change to Particulars of Claim 12. On both the three PCNs and in the Particulars of Claim it is written “Reason: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased”. 13. Admittedly It could be argued that when the claimant issued the PCNs they thought that no pay and display had been purchased (although surely a registration number with one digit misplaced could be traced). 14. However, there is no excuse for writing in the Particulars of Claim "Reason: No valid pay and display/permit was purchased". By this point the Claimant or their representatives had been shown multiple times that payment had been made as shown in my exhibit of correspondence. 15. A claim against me may or may not succeed on the grounds that the driver broke the rule about inputting the correct registration number and agreed to pay £100. But the claimant has not sued on this basis. The claimant has sued on the basis that "No valid pay and display/permit was purchased". The claim must fail because the valid pay and display was indeed purchased. 16. In their Witness Statement para 25 vi the claimant’s solicitor writes "It is maintained that no payment was received and the Defendant failed to obtain a valid parking session on each occasion for their Vehicle, and the Parking Charges were therefore issued correctly". Payment was received, payment was shown to be received in correspondence to the claimant/their solicitor and payment has been shown in this Witness Statement to have been received. The claimant has no case. The driver paid. More in a mo, very busy at this end.

Absolutely not! Do nothing. Yours is not the next move.

Given they sent theirs by e-mail you might as well do the same. It's too near the hearing now for them to be able to trip you up with their stupid games. Last tweaking of your WS tomorrow, e-mailing to the court and ECP on Friday.

Two quick things. 1. From a first read what they have written is superb - for you. They have used a lazy copy & paste WS stating that you never nominated the driver. All this can be used to wallop them. 2. But we need time. I for one have just got back from holiday so you can imagine what my work day will be like tomorrow. I'm prepared to do work on this tomorrow evening meaning you can e-mail the court by 4pm on Friday which is the deadline. You've gone way OTT about sending your WS early throughout this thread when there is no need and you risk missing out important arguments.

We can read it fine.

Most will be exhibits. Can you just upload it as is? There will be I.T. experts here - not me! - who may be able to make sense of it.

When you've filed the DQ please come back here and we can deal with the no-reply to the SAR.

dx is spot on. You're overthinking the matter of the court deadline. Also - https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/excel-lose-in-court.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4557969.stm

Good grief you're right! You won't be paying a penny.

Well done on your victory! Thread title changed to show your win. Second stuffing for the PPCs today! Please let us know when you get confirmation - always distrust the likes of Horizon to the last.

Well done on your victory! As dx says, be wary to the last though.