Free Traffic Legal Advice

If I were to get a statement from the Head of Security stating that the driver had permission to park here and that he does not consider the location to be obstructive, this would blow them out of the water would it not?

I doubt it. Permission after the event upon which you hadn't previously relied? 'This location' or any place in obstruction? Would the Head of Security have the landowner's authority to amend their contract with the PPC? I suggest that the HoS would need to appear as a witness.

My previous posts were based upon the evidence at that time i.e. you had not mentioned a NTK, unsuccessful PPC and POPLA appeals, an assessor's decision which challenges directly some of the assertions you've made in this thread e.g. they found that a NTD was served which formed the basis of their subsequent finding that the discount was not required to be offered in the NTK etc.

Permission after the event upon which you hadn't previously relied?

Producing some evidence, albeit after the fact, is better than nothing, but I agree with H C Andersen that it might not look great. I note you've asserted at all stages of the process that you had permission to park where you did, but a judge may well wonder why no evidence of said permission has been produced until the matter has gone all the way to court. We cannot go back in time and acquire written permission from the date in question however, so producing something now is certainly better than simply asking the court to believe you without supporting evidence.

From your SAR - is there a copy of the parking company's contract with the landowner in there? It's not your personal data, so they may well not have included it in your SAR response, but neither is signage, and they've included that!

Not much to note there - although as you mention they haven't provided the whole thing, including the bit where it is actually signed... They also don't detail how the 'extension' period mentioned under "Contract Term" works. The charge was issued outside the initial 5 year term, but within the 2 year extension

Thank you, so how should I proceed from here?

From the thread so far, I assume you've acknowledged the claim on MCOL as discussed? If so, your next step if you're still contesting the claim is to draft up your defence.

Quote from: dave-o on October 27, 2023, 09:34:58 am

Thank you, so how should I proceed from here?

From the thread so far, I assume you've acknowledged the claim on MCOL as discussed? If so, your next step if you're still contesting the claim is to draft up your defence.

It has been acknowledged on MCOL.

In terms of the draft, are you happy/willing to help with this?  If you think there's no point then I will fold and save everyone the trouble...

*EDIT*  Also just to say if this would be a better strategy, I am happy to contest it in part.  As the original PCN was never received and no reasonable period was offered to pay the original amount after appeal refusal (they gave 1 day), I could offer to pay the £40, thereby seeming somewhat reasonable while not paying them any of the scum debt collector charges.  It would seem entirely reasonable to me that someone who's trying to do an honest day's work at their employer, has been given permission to park somewhere, surprise ticketed and never given an option to pay less than £70, should not be penalised to the whole tune.  But of course I am biased.

We still need to see Annex 1.

You have only shown us selected photos, but clearly the creditor's evidence persuaded the POPLA assessor that a PCN was issued to the vehicle. In addition, the car was parked partly on the pavement and partly on what looks like a circulating route, a route which could probably be used HGVs as well as cars. In fact the OP hasn't given us anything regarding the location other than a single, close-up picture.

IMO, unless there's a technical reason why First Parking cannot bring this action in their name I don't know what the OP's defence would be other than disputing that the vehicle was causing an obstruction...but the OP wasn't there and wasn't the driver and I don't think a judge would be persuaded by their opinion on a single photo without any context.

'the employer had given permission to park outside standard parking places in this situation.  Many employees did this all the time,'

Then you need to get a written copy of this permission to include in your witness statement to the court. But as observed by others, the alleged breach was for 'obstructive' parking, not simply parking outside bays.

I must say that your later post of  'If I were to get a statement from the Head of Security stating that the driver had permission to park here ..' does not suggest that there was extant written permission from the employer to park causing an obstruction.

I strongly suggest that you get your thoughts ordered before submitting your defence and witness statements because I'm certain that I'm just asking the same questions and requiring the same level of proof as would the court. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll just accept your word.

Where is Annex 1? This is the document which specifies the extent, and therefore limit, of the contractor's authority as regards pursuing parking charges and yet we've still not seen it.

is still a high bar for a PPC to reach, no?

Not really. 

Did a contract exist and did a breach occur?  You don't deny the former but suggest without physical proof that the driver was permitted by a competent authority to act as they did.

The ball is in your court given that prima facie a breach occurred.

The forum works best when info is shared as widely as possible. As regards Annex 1, I don't understand how you can be so dismissive given that the claimant's evidence (ss6 and 7 of their Service Specification) brings its relevance front and centre.