Bank Parking ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - wrong reg - Appeal failed - Belvedere Street Car Park, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 1JJ

[FTMDave]

You're nearly there.

Use this free site to convert from jpg to pdf  https://www.sejda.com/jpg-to-pdf

 

[dx100uk]

or email them to me as you have been...

[Laura Cooke]

I have no paper work at present to share to CAG I was just taking your advice and practising how to scan and send things, I have followed the instructions on the link you gave me. But that go me nowhere as all it keeps saying is it has to be pdf and I found no way how to make things pdf.

I assume I will not get any more paper work from the Court for sometime seeing as the online hearing is not till 25th June, I will keep trying to see how to do this pdf thing.

I doubt any of my family will understand any of this anymore than I do but I am going to ask each of them, the only way I personally know how to black out personal details is with a marker pen all that link I have read I am no wiser, I have a family member abroad he might be able to help I will ask him if he knows how to get rid of personal details off paper work and change things to pdf. 

The upload guide I was given on CAG has a link How to convert your document to pdf and this is the link I used www.pdfmerge.com, I was under the impression this would show me how to change things from jpg to pdf

[FTMDave]

You're nearly there.

Use this free site to convert from jpg to pdf  https://www.sejda.com/jpg-to-pdf

[FTMDave]

Laura has received this from the court.

 

Court 04-05-2024 litigation friend to be decided at 25 06 hearing.pdf

[brassnecked]

The court are going to consider the request for a Litigatiohn Friend so that's a positive for her.

[Laura Cooke]

I applied to the Court to act as litigation friend has my son is Severely Mentally Impaired and sent the proof they requested from his GP so I thought this might have been accepted without a hearing. I cannot believe the claimant is still convinced my son was the driver.

[brassnecked]

They will consider all your evidence hopefully they will see sense and allow

 

[lookinforinfo]

 I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to  represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering  in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate .

Even their  own  IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said 

" The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again."

That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point.  But I am sorry to say  that you should not count on it.

 

[Laura Cooke]

I am sorry I am not aware of this report from IAS assessors? The Court will consider my application at a online hearing in June.

The Court instructed me to send Bank copies of my sons condition proving he could not have been the driver I have heard nothing further.

My son is not aware of any proceedings I have not involved him to avoid causing him distress, he has been sectioned a fair few times and I need to avoid this happening.

[dx100uk]

its an online hearing almost guaranteed you can rep him. 

he need not know anything about it.

the IAS assessors report was uploaded here by you long ago.

dx

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

 

laura, I know you have a lot going on in your life so as a reminder if you look at post 16 on your thread that is way back on page 1 you posted up the response from the IAS Adjudicator where around about paragraph 10 I repeated what they said "based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again."

In other words your grandson put in the number plate of the lady he helped instead of your number after he sorted out the lady's own number. It is a very easy mistake to make. What is so unusual that the Adjudicator took the time to explain how it could have happened not only for your benefit but for information to Bank who should have taken notice and dropped proceedings.

But that letter is a great asset for you and your son.

 

 

[Laura Cooke]

Thanks I will take a look at that report I appreciate that people know I have a lot going on and I do easily forget things and have helped me out

[FTMDave]

Well remembered LFI.

For the moment just concentrate on the hearing in June Laura, which should be a doddle.

After we will help you prepare a Witness Statement which will blow Bank Parking to Alpha Centauri.

[Laura Cooke]

Thanks found the adjudicators report just a case of waiting now for the hearing in June

[brassnecked]

Bank Parking will regret all of this it will rebound on them.

[FTMDave]

OK, Laura has received DCBL's WS "for the hearing on 25th June 2024 at 14:45".

At first glance these legal geniuses, who are just used to preparing cut & paste WSs for whatever hearing is fixed after DQs, haven't twigged that 25/06 is not the full hearing date.

But are we 100% sure it is a preliminary hearing, and not the full hearing date?

The WS is full of laughable own goals but let's deal with that after, let's be sure about what will happen on 25/06 first.

Witness Statement and Evidence bundle (Pag) (46 Pages)-1.pdf

[Laura Cooke]

Well the paper work from the Court does say preliminary hearing and that I am to forward my email and contact number 7 days before the hearing.

At the hearing they will decide If they accept me being Litigation Friend on behalf of my mentally disabled son.

[FTMDave]

Well that looks cut & dried then.

DCBL have made the mistake of mixing up the two hearings through getting the tea boy to prepare their paperwork.

Concentrate on being accepted as a Litigation Friend first.

Then once this formality is over we can destroy their WS.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting their WS.

If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it.

Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client.

Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out-

• “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

• And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced. 

• So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11.

• Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR.

• Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park.

• A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed. 

• So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm. 

• Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence.

• Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands.

• Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d]. 

• Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [2][a] states 

  (2)The notice must—

  (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

• The PCN only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT.

• Moreover in S9[2][f] 

  (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;

• You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included.

• As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made.

• Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details.

• Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.

 

I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with

[Laura Cooke]

That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper?

The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate. 

I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim. 

It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.

[FTMDave]

OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more.

It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early.

Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there.

Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf