Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If you are relying on the NTK not being POFA compliant, who knows, its just b789 personal opinion and it's never been tested in court and other experienced posters on here don't necessarily agree. Maybe you will be the one to settle the matter one way or the other.
As for a CCJ, you only get one of those if you lose and dont pay, so completely your control.
They have added a fake £30 to the charge which will not be allowed if this gets to court and you are unsuccessful. Having submitted your AoS, your defence must be submitted by 4pm on Monday 1st September.
Has the driver been identified? ParkingEye (and CPP) NtKs are never 100% PoFA compliant. They always fail PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as they do not invite the Keeper to pay the charge. They only say that if the Keeper was not the driver, they should pass the NtK on to the driver and inform the operator of the drivers details.
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012. Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.
If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge. The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.
So, has the driver been identified? If yes, then ignore the above information.
Without seeing the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) or knowing whether any appeal was made and if so, what was in the appeal, it is difficult to advise further at this stage.
When you have answered the questions about the NtK and any prior submission to ParkingEye, I can come up with a suitable defence, especially one that picks holes in their PoC.
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.Quote1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3 The Particulars of Claim must, on their face, state a concise case that enables the Defendant to understand and meet it. The MCOL regime disapplies only any requirement to attach documents; it does not relax CPR 16.4(1)(a). If more space was required, the Claimant should have served separate, detailed particulars pursuant to the MCOL practice. Any attempt to cure deficient PoC by relying on a later witness statement or on supposed prior correspondence is improper and does not meet the pleading requirement.
4. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because (to the extent any of the following are not already fully and clearly pleaded):
5. (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not set out the material wording of the clause(s) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason(s) why the Claimant asserts the Defendant was in breach;
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity the precise locus within the site, the exact time of the alleged breach and the period of parking relied upon;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including any breakdown between the principal parking charge and any added sums;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion (if any) is said to be additional charges;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the registered keeper, the Claimant having pleaded no clear capacity.
6. Persuasive County Court appeal authority supports strike-out of inadequately particularised parking PoC: in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44], the PoC “did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach” and were struck out; and in CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30], the court reaffirmed that PoC must set out the basic facts relied on under CPR 16.4(1)(a).
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver. There is no legal obligation upon a registered keeper to identify the driver.
8. If relying on PoFA Schedule 4, the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with every condition precedent: that the site is “relevant land”; that any Notice to Keeper was served within time and contained all prescribed elements, including para 9(2)(e)(i) (an invitation to the keeper to pay) and para 9(2)(a) (a specified period of parking). Absent strict compliance, keeper liability does not arise.
9. Reliance on ANPR entry/exit timestamps does not of itself evidence a period of parking (as distinct from driving, queueing or taking time to read and consider terms). Strict proof is required.
10. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the PoC failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
11. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case-management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
It's late in the day, but there's no harm in asking the hospital to get it cancelled since your wife does actually have a permit. I doubt PE will back down at this stage, but nothing ventured, nothing gained!
It's late in the day, but there's no harm in asking the hospital to get it cancelled since your wife does actually have a permit. I doubt PE will back down at this stage, but nothing ventured, nothing gained!