3. Any advice would be much appreciated
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Any advice would be much appreciated  (Read 152 times)

0 Members and 96 Guests are viewing this topic.

Any advice would be much appreciated
« on: »
In 2021 my son worked for Nandos and as an employee had to give his registration plate to his employer to allow him to park in the allocated Smart Parking site. On one occasion his car broke down and so on that day of his shift he borrowed my car. When he arrived at work he informed his employer of the different car and they assured him that it had been registered on the correct system. Months later I received a fine - I went to Nandos (employer) who told me to ignore it and said that it will go away. In september 2025 (years later) I received another letter/fine from Smart Parking Limited from the initial offence in 2021. I was obviously annoyed and went straight to Nandos. I wrote to Smart Parking Limited with a witness statement from the Nandos manager acknowledging that my son worked there and was eligible on this occasion to park there. It has now escalated to the point where I have to submit an N180 as a defendant to Small Claims. Should I agree to mediation and pay up in order for it so go away and avoid court? Any help or advice would be highly appreciated. I have to respond by the 5th of Jan. Thanks in advance
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
« Reply #1 on: »
Advice.

Before posting in a forum such as this, make the effort to find the appropriate subforum (this is clearly a "Private Parking Ticket" case), find the cunningly hidden "READ THIS FIRST" sticky at the top of that forum - which gives you basic initial advice and indicates what information we need to be able to offer meaningful advice, and post appropriately in that forum.

N.B. This thread has now been moved to the correct forum. Do NOT start a new thread for this case.

The most obvious gaping whole in your account of events is that it went from the odd random letter to the Directions Questionnaire form N180. To all intents and purposes, your defence to this claim is the defence that you must have lodged, but neglected to mention. This cannot be amended without the permission of the court.

Without seeing your defence, there is no point trying to give meaningful advice regarding defending the claim.
Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Dislike Dislike x 1 View List
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
« Reply #2 on: »
We are also going to need to see the original PCN as we need to establish if they can even move the liability from the driver to the keeper.

At the present time, your defence would simply be, "I was not the driver".

They will probably pull out of the hearing at the last moment.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2026, 08:49:54 am by InterCity125 »
Logged
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
« Reply #3 on: »
Quote from: InterCity125 on January 04, 2026, 08:46:54 am
At the present time, your defence would simply be, "I was not the driver".

At the present time, the OP's defence would simply be whatever defence he has already lodged, and cannot amend without the court's permission. Do try to keep up at the back.
Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Dislike Dislike x 1 View List
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
« Reply #4 on: »
It's the Small Claims Track so the Witness Statement can easily be used to provide either additional angles of defence OR development of a skeleton argument subjectively mentioned in the original defence.

My feeling is that the OP is looking for advice from the N180 forward - so he or she is looking things which could help them either factually or strategically in moving the matter forward?

I would also note that the OP has specifically mentioned that Smart are already aware of the fact that the RK is not the driver in this case and as such it will be for Smart to show the court that they are legally able to hold the RK liable is such a situation.
Logged
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
« Reply #5 on: »
Quote
it will be for Smart to show the court that they are legally able to hold the RK liable is such a situation.
Hence why we ought to see the original PCN.

Given the timelines suggested, it almost certainly isn't PoFA compliant, as they didn't even attempt to comply until relatively recently, but if we see the document we can advise.
Logged
Re: Any advice would be much appreciated
« Reply #6 on: »
Agreed 100% - Smart from 2021 will almost certainly will be non PoFA compliant.
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Any advice would be much appreciated