Any chance you could scan the tickets and NOKs and post them up here?

Cover any personal details, reference numbers, etc first though.

Did they supply you with copies of the tickets and NOKs that relate to the claim?

There is a space for comment on the N180 where you can state that you wish to object to any request by the Claimant for an "on the papers" hearing.

I wouldn't worry about the permits term, as the non-display of a permit is not the apparent cause for action against you. Have you sent them a CPR request for documentation?

I wouldn't worry. It's not critical.

What was provided as part of the CPR response that's crucial to your defence?

Final throw of the dice before they admit defeat, maybe.

Did you do the witness statement?

Your WS is a bit loose and lacks focus in some areas. Attached is an example one that I used recently when helping someone defend a fairly similar case. I have no doubt it's far from perfect, but the key information is in there - you'll need to adapt to suit you and also omit anything irrelevant.

Also, just to point out - you seem to be pressing the case for the claimant not being compliant with POFA. I think you're a bit off the mark here, having read their WS - but, you should always state clear examples to back up your points and use credible sources to support your arguments.

Anyway, I don't think you'll go too far wrong by using chunks out of what I've attached, should you choose to use it.

Example WS.pdf

10 hours ago, Geocyper said:

the parking company have no idea,

 

1. I was there.

2. Who I am

3. I was passenger in car, may need Driver as witness.  Also do I have to comment on their authorities, ie, refute them?

In that case, you'd be best advised to not mention anything about being there. Keep yourself as totally uninvolved with the parking event. It was the Driver who received the ticket. Therefore, to pursue the Driver, they should prove that individual was you.

To pursue you as the Keeper, they need to rely on POFA. To my mind, that's pretty clearly what they're doing. There may be holes in their pleaded compliance, but I've only skimmed over the facts. Nevertheless, you should include that POFA only entitles the Claimant to the amount stated on the notices - not the extra £60 they try to [problem] us for on top.

10 hours ago, Geocyper said:

Hi would it be possible for me to include my reservations about their Particulars of claim.  I have typed this up.

You can by all means attack the lack of clarity as to the capacity in which they're claiming against you. I would use this to clearly define the difference between Driver and Keeper and what this means insofar as the context of the claim.

You have two very obvious points of defence - the main one being the lack of authority; and the other being prohibitive signage meaning there cannot have been a contract created with the Driver. You can build any other points in around this then, but if you can get those two arguments across strongly then they should see you over the line with this.

Post a draft of your WS up before sending it off.

I'm not getting what you're saying, sorry. You implied that your WS  has not been submitted yet, so how have you "done" anything at this stage?

Please explain how/where you've already admitted being present when the vehicle was parked and received the charge?

There's no real need to refer directly to their WS or attack parts of it in your own WS. What you can do is outline your arguments, but then as part of what you present at the hearing, refer to their WS - e.g. "see landowner agreement - exhibit A in Claimant's witness statement". That type of thing.

Post up a concise list of that you feel are your primary arguments for us to see.

So, your WS not due for another week, and you have not, therefore, told them that you were present when the parking event took place? Is that correct?

Their position as of the date of the parking charge is all you need to consider.

IPC CoP - Part B, 1.1 is where you'll see the bit about the agreement with landowner/occupier.

Would you be able to scan up their full WS (or at least everything excluding exhibits)?

10 hours ago, skeet23 said:

Hmmm. Or indeed any evidence the contract was still in force in October 2018 ?

Is it worth mentioning this in my witness statement ?

 

--skeet23

If it were me, and this is open to discussion, I would simply mention in your WS that the Claimant requires authority from the landowner/occupier, and they will be expected to demonstrate this if their claim is to have any merit. Quote the relevant bits of POFA and also the operator Code of Practice and include both documents in your WS. You can then take them to task at the hearing on this point. If you give them warning that you're onto their expired agreement with the landowner, they may suddenly find a valid agreement down the back of the sofa and then introduce it as supplemental evidence.

P.S. You should probably also positively assert/mention that you don't believe this authority exists (if you haven't already), so that you're effectively pleading it as a line of defence (have you included this point in your defence), rather than it being something you've just thrown into the mixer for the hell of it. This isn't the same as pointing out that the agreement they've disclosed is invalid - just leaves it open to examination.

Good spot with the agreement term.

As DX rightly states, if they have not introduced other evidence in support of the expired agreement which renders it valid during the time the driver entered the land and parked the vehicle, then they are relying solely on an expired agreement, so have no right to bring a claim against anyone.

They are also in breach of their operator Code of Practice.

Of course, you'll only drop this on them of this at the hearing.

Have either you or they submitted copies of POFA and the Code of Practice as part of witness statements?

I'm pretty sure they're referring to POFA, and have gone to great length to demonstrate their compliance in their WS.

Ok... so, they ARE relying on POFA - right?

The signage is also forbidding, so is not a genuine offer to park. You've probably covered this point within the thread already - I haven't read back over it.

It's not ideal, but I guess it shouldn't really matter if the Claimant is not relying on POFA to transfer liability - they should still need to provide evidence that the driver and the defendant are the same person. You're only telling the truth, I guess.

Does that really need to be mentioned?

I'd be interested to see how they're attempting to hold you, as Keeper, liable for something some unknown third party has done.

Just reading over your draft WS posted further up.

Is there a particular reason for admitting being present when the vehicle was parked on the site?

Regards the signage - you have a copy of the original signage posted on here, so use that against them. A judge won't take kindly to them trying to mislead in that way.

Ultimately, if it states on the ticket that the reason was double parking, then that's what you are defending against. Is that what it explicitly states on the tickets?

One thing you might want to consider is the claimant's reason for the charge, as mentioned in your appeal - being that parking was not allowed in the area your vehicle was parked. This is prohibitive, this not an offer of contract at all. You could also argue that the signage did not apply to the side of the carpark where you were parked, thus no terms of parking applied.

It's always as well to have  as many angles of defence as you can.

Harni... just a slight correction to EB's defence - it's "locus standi", not stando.

Did they send you a copy of the management agreement with the landowner?

What date do you need to submit your defence by? Don't do it just yet if you've still got time. I think it may benefit from a little refinement.

Have you written this all yourself?

You live and learn. At least you had the bottle to face them.

Unlucky! Did you not argue that they can only pursue you for charges as the Keeper to the extent allowable under POFA?