CEL ANPR PCN Claimform - Tily Carpentry Yate Bristol ***Discontinued***

[webbscatering]

Scanned 12 pages that were relevant missing out all the financial help letters and the cover letter,

thanks

 

pdfjoiner (1 ).pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Could you please show the back of the first PCN you received round about 17th January. Was there a WS included or just the PE v Beavis case?

[dx100uk]

a reply to his CPR not a WS LFI..

 

dx

 

[webbscatering]

Good Morning,

there is nothing on the reverse of any of the paperwork sent on the 17th January and that looks like all the paperwork that came with the case file, I am more than happy to scan every sheet but it only contains "Ways to pay" or "Financial Statements".

I did not see any paperwork on appealing the PCN.

 

 

pdfjoiner (2).pdf

[lookinforinfo]

The reason I asked for a look at the back of the PCN was because there was nothing on the front that allowed them to transfer the liability from the driver to the keeper as there should be to comply with PoFA.

As it was one of your sons who was driving you are in the clear and cannot be liable for this PCN. All you have to do is not to divulge who the driver was.

[lookinforinfo]

As you are not liable for this PCN I think that we could try and head this off at the pass to coin an old wetern film cliche.

To save the time of yourself,  CEL and the Court you could send a Cease and Desist letter to CEL. basically saying that you are not responsible for paying the PCN as you were not the driver and there is no keeper liability involved. You are not prepared to divulge who was driving so if they want continue to go to Court not only do you have a complete defence to their claim but you will be expecting the Court to add exemplary damages to your costs.

[webbscatering]

Amazing work and thank you very much for the time and effort you have put into this, but I think there maybe some confusion or cross wires as I'm doing this on my sons behalf because being a halfwit he buried his head in the sand hoping it would go away. My son is the registered keeper and also the owner of this particular car (which is now written off) So they haven't tried to palm this off on me, I really sorry if this is how its come over and my good intentions was not to mislead anyone.

[lookinforinfo]

No Problem. If your son has not revealed who was driving it does make their case more difficult.

[webbscatering]

I do believe I said something along the same lines to Dx but was not that impressed with that idea! see #15

[webbscatering]

Filling out the defence but stuck on this one:

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 [set out the specific ways in which the requirements of the paragraphs mentioned above have not been met].
Only include the above paragraph if you have checked the POFA and can refer to the specific paragraphs which have not been complied with. Otherwise delete it. Do not forget to renumber the remaining paragraphs.

 

Have they complied with PoFA 2012?

[FTMDave]

Simple fact is we don't know because your son has binned the documentation.

 

If you're uncomfortable with this clause, then just leave it out.

 

The more generic the defence is the better anyway.  Just use the standard short defence that is on most claimform threads here.

[FTMDave]

And a cautionary tale.

 

We recently had someone on the forum (not PPC, another section) who put masses of work in on behalf of his son-in-law, who was being sued.

 

Once the son-in-law found himself in a court setting, he got pretty much trounced.

 

This was because the father-in-law had educated himself about the legal position, but the actual person being sued hadn't.

 

If CEL do continue all the way to a court case it will be your son, not you, who will have to face them.  It would be much better if he dealt with his own case and educated himself about where he stands legally, sharpish.

[webbscatering]

all documents are in #29, but also I'll take on board the good advice and get him to read through this thread

[FTMDave]

Wooops!  Missed that, sorry.

 

It's debatable if they have complied with POFA.  They seem to have sent out the documentation in time, but then have hidden in miniscule writing that your son could name the driver if he wasn't driving.  Plus they haven't even said what he did wrong!

[webbscatering]

Thanks FTMDave, where does that leave me with writing the defence, keeping to your previous advice and keeping it short or add something to No.3

 

[dx100uk]

Dont tip rhem off..keep it totally bland and generic.

 

[webbscatering]

Awesome thanks

[lookinforinfo]

They haven't complied with PoFA as far as keeper liability is concerned.

This part of what the NTK should say 

"

warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

Instead they just said this.........................so absolutely there was no notice of them transferring the liability from the driver to the keeper.

                                                 "

[webbscatering]

Nice work thanks for that

[FTMDave]

You need to file something like post 64 here

 

 

[webbscatering]

just read it thank you. The signage is hidden besides a wall which cannot be seen by the driver because its to his left and its a floor standing notice not a wall mounted notice and its clearly visible only when you leave. Have a look and see if you agree with me

15-01-2020b.pdf

[FTMDave]

Certainly if your son could only see the sign when driving out it would make it impossible for him to enter a contract with CEL.

 

I've just reread the thread and seen the deadline for his defence was 16 April, so he needs to deal with this quickly.  How about -

 

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXX.

 

2.  The Claimant was contracted by the landowner to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  The proper Claimant is the landowner.

3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.

 

4. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

 

Point 3 is a catch all and covers the rubbish signage and any other reason a contract wasn't entered into.

 

See if anyone suggests tweaking this afternoon, then this evening file it via MCOL, if MCOL is working.

[webbscatering]

I filed this already on the 16th April:-

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the
Mini Cooper

2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in Grooms House Car Park Stanshaws Court Drive Yate Bristol at the times mentioned in the Particulars OR the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in Grooms House Car Park Stanshaws Court Drive Yate Bristol as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

4. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Edited April 18, 2021 by webbscatering
grammer

[dx100uk]

and where did you get 2 from?

you ideally should never file an embarrassed style of defence using OR 

[webbscatering]

okay that don't sound good, I took it off this site