County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

[charitynjw]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

The driver is not/was not the registered keeper

Not quite what I asked.

are you (or were you at the time) the registered keeper on the DVLA database?

There is no presumption in law that the RK is necessarily the driver (despite Gladstones' tosh about Elliot v Loake).

The parking co normally obtains details via the DVLA database, which is usually for the RK.

[sammy79]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

Not quite what I asked.


There is no presumption in law that the RK is necessarily the driver (despite Gladstones' tosh about Elliot v Loake).

The parking co normally obtains details via the DVLA database, which is usually for the RK.

Sorry, yes I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Thank you

[charitynjw]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

The parking incident occurred on 10/01/2017.

That notice (black header) seems to be the first postal notification.

If so, & if they are pursuing the RK, it is out of time.....See post #4 & Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch 4 (8)(5).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

If they are pursuing the driver, as stated there is no presumption that the RK & the driver are the same.
The Elliot v Loake argument has failed* so many times it is a standing joke (though it might be an idea to show that other people do have access to & drive the vehicle, just in case.)

*Loads of cases available to back this up if & when necessary.

[ostell]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

If the first letter received is taken as a Notice to Keeper then, apart from it being too late, it fails to conform to the requirement of POFA in many respects to be able to hold the keeper liable, unless they are on the back. Here's POFA , you need to check paragraph 8 and see what is missing or incorrectly stated. For starters there is no warning to the keeper that they may be liable, 8 (2) (f). no invitation to name the driver 8 (2) (e) etc. Is the creditor actually identified 8 (2) (h).

Elliot v Loake was a criminal case where there was forensic and other evidence that the keeper was indeed the driver. There was no assumption made.

[sammy79]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

If the first letter received is taken as a Notice to Keeper then, apart from it being too late, it fails to conform to the requirement of POFA in many respects to be able to hold the keeper liable, unless they are on the back. Here's POFA , you need to check paragraph 8 and see what is missing or incorrectly stated. For starters there is no warning to the keeper that they may be liable, 8 (2) (f). no invitation to name the driver 8 (2) (e) etc. Is the creditor actually identified 8 (2) (h).

Elliot v Loake was a criminal case where there was forensic and other evidence that the keeper was indeed the driver. There was no assumption made.

Thank you very much for the information.

So for the defence, I have found the following, will this suffice?


1.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

2. A valid ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the duration of stay.

3.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

4.a)
No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.b)
Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.c)
No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5.
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to AS Parking. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.


6. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


7)
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in an educational establishment where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking.


8.
The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor cost and interest. The Particulars of Claim are spectacularly deficient and woefully inadequate to show a cause of action.


9.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


Will this be sufficient?

Thank you again for all your help.

[charitynjw]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

Para #2 might need some tweaking.

From previous posts it would seem that there was a 20 min overstay?

Btw, are there any witnesses (other than the driver) who would corroborate the machine malfunction?

[sammy79]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

Para #2 might need some tweaking.

From previous posts it would seem that there was a 20 min overstay?

Btw, are there any witnesses (other than the driver) who would corroborate the machine malfunction?

Should I remove para 2 entirely?

Yes there was a 20 minute overstay, however it was after the driver had returned to purchase additional time and found the machine not working.

Yes there is an additional witness who can corroborate the machine not working.

Thank you

[charitynjw]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

If it were me I'd say

2. A valid ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the estimated duration of stay.

Common sense, really.
When purchasing a ticket, how can anyone know in advance whether something will occur which causes delay?

& get a witness statement from the other person, supported by a signed statement of truth.

It would be a reasonable scenario if, for instance, the driver & witness went to extend the period of parking, were prevented from doing so due to no fault of their own, then had to return to wherever they were visiting to retrieve hat, coats, bags etc (or whatever).

[Dionis1]

Re: County Court Claim; SIP Gladstones Manchester car park

If it were me I'd say


Common sense, really.
When purchasing a ticket, how can anyone know in advance whether something will occur which causes delay?

& get a witness statement from the other person, supported by a signed statement of truth.

It would be a reasonable scenario if, for instance, the driver & witness went to extend the period of parking, were prevented from doing so due to no fault of their own, then had to return to wherever they were visiting to retrieve hat, coats, bags etc (or whatever).

Hi to both of you,
Is this case still ongoing?
If so, I may be able to help. As I both visit Manchester quite regularly and despise these creeps with a passion, if it would help, I'd be prepared to take any necessary photos of the site signage.
Please advise me, if I can help.
Regards