TPS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Wrong Reg - boddingtons Gt Ducie Street, Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ

[lookinforinfo]

That is a powerful WS with a lot of research having gone into it.

It is perhaps a shame that it is only for a wrong vrm entry.

It would have TPS deciding not to go ahead with a stronger case then yours after reading your WS.

It does seem very one sided when you have a company that has a non compliant PCN and no planning permission be able to go to Court when the motorist has paid the correct fee and all they have done is quoted the wrong registration number.

TPS should be aware of the Baroness Walmsley  v TFL case in the Supreme Court where they allowed the Baroness relief in paying the Congestion charge because she had paid but messed up on the registration number and not gone to Court with this

.I would be asking for costs if it goes to Court.

[Dave962]

Thanks lookingforinfo, much appreciated. I will look into the costs to see how much I need to quote if it comes to it.

Most of this has been advised by the good people of this website such as yourself so I can't take any credit for this. I hope its ok, and I will continue to tidy up.

Also, today I have received in the post, a kind offer from DCB, off their client TCP, to settle the case for £150...'to assist the court in achieving its overriding objective'.

Sorry I should have added, current balance is £253.

[brassnecked]

That WS as LFI indicates is a sledgehammer to their case

DCBL are trying it on to with the usual guff and offer to settle for at least 50 quid more than they were originally not even entitled to.

 Think that WS would hit them across the chops with something bigger than a wet herring more like a shark.

[FTMDave]

I'll have a detailed read through the WS when I knock off work this evening.

[FTMDave]

OK, I've read through your thread from the start and also the WS.

It's very good - but if we can improve it, why not?

The whole part DEFENCE can be binned.  The court already knows you filed a defence.

Onto DE MINIMIS.  I've reconsidered what I wrote above re the letters.  After "The defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong reg being incorrectly entered" I think you should include the two letters you wrote during PAPLOC.  That will show the judge that TPS knew they had a rubbish case but decided to waste the court's time anyway.

Onto KEEPER LIABILITY (actually it should be NO KEEPER LIABILITY) where you write "Principally because it misses out a small section of the Act" I think the word "small" should go.  There's no need to point out that their mistake is small, it's still a mistake.

Also point out here that in their PoCs they have written "liable as the driver or the keeper" which is "fishing" for liability.  If they have not respected the provisions of POFA then they can only pursue the driver, and they have no evidence whatsoever that you were the driver.

At this point the legal arguments become a jumble IMO and some paras need to be moved.

After NO KEEPER LIABILITY I would start a new section NO LOCUS STANDI and move paras 43 & 44 (the first 44, there are two) there.

Next create an ILLEGAL SIGNAGE section and repeat para 44 (the first one).

I think you vastly overegg the pudding in the DOUBLE RECOVERY section and paras 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 (the second 44, there are two), 47, 48 can all go, they are repetitive and superfluous.

If you agree please post up a second draft and we can take it from there.

[lookinforinfo]

DCBL are nothing if not extremely talented in overcharging . No I was right at first -they are nothing.  I would agree with the Supreme Court  Judges statement in PE v Beavis that the penalty clause was invoked.

[Dave962]

Thanks all for your fantastic advice, I've already go too work on the amendments.

Just to be sure tho will I still be ok to include the letters, even if they both draw attention to the 'house move'?

[FTMDave]

The "moving" issue is ancient history now and has no relevance to whether you owe the money or not.  Don't worry.

[Dave962]

Thanks Dave, that’s reassuring to know.

I’ve also been meaning to get back that my case has been moved to 10th April.

But I’ve been so busy I haven’t had chance.

This why I knew Feb was a bad idea I’m so glad they could shift it, the next date should be much better all being well.

[Dave962]

Time to refresh my memory and start to focus on my ws again.

I believe it needs to be be submitted by 27th March, and a lot of this time between now and then I'll be working.

If you're able to review my 2nd draft it would be appreciated as always.

 

Defendants WS 2ndt draft.pdf

[FTMDave]

That is short and sweet - exactly what judges like.  No waffle.  To the point.  Well done.

It should be: EXHIBIT 05 - Letter written during PAPLOC

As De Minimis is your ace it would be good to quote a couple of persuasive cases.

Paras 15 & 16 are a bit jumbled.  I would change to:

15. The Defendant asked to see their contact with the landowner that authorises the Claimant to bring legal claims in their own name by CPR 31:14 request but they never replied EXHIBIT X. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant possesses such a contract.

Illegal Signage

16. The Defendant asked to see proof of planning permission for the Claimant's signs by CPR 31:14 request but the Claimant never replied EXHIBIT X. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant possesses planning permission, which is a criminal offence under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

[Dave962]

Hi Dave,

thanks for getting back to me, and helping tidy up again.

It really is appreciated as always.

Yes it does appear to be a a more concise summary now, which as you say, I'm sure the judges much prefer to having to sift through reams of paper.

I'll make those respective changes, along with the remaining tidying up of the document, then sit tight now before my submission date. 

[Dave962]

Part of their WS

 

Claimants WS (part of).pdf

[FTMDave]

So presumably that is Total Car Parks' Witness Statement.

Have you filed yours yet?

[Dave962]

Hi Dave

It is sorry yes. I've missed a couple of pages out with personal info, but that is the bulk of it.

No not yet just thought I'd send this over quickly before I sent mine across asap

[FTMDave]

OK, will have a quick look now.

[Dave962]

Thanks Dave

[Nicky Boy]

Might be worth trying to use this somewhere in the WS?

I know that they say it should be dealt with at the appeal stage, but given that the OP told them this at PAPLOC stage...

 

FRom BPA Code of Practice

Section 17:  Keying Errors

B) Major Keying Errors
Examples of a major keying error could include:
• Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration
• Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration
• Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)
• Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits
In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant).
It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.

[FTMDave]

Most of what they have written is waffle, but if you want you could add little bits to your WS.

After your current (4) you could add

5.  The Claimant is incorrect in stating in their Witness Statement (para 13) that "no payment for parking was made by the Defendant".  My exhibits show that payment was made.  They again state (para 22 vi) "a valid parking session was not purchased by the Defendant" which is incorrect and the Claimant knows the statement is incorrect.

You could expand your current (5) to

5. The Defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong registration being incorrectly entered.  The Claimant can witter on all they want (their WS para 21) about their laughable appeals procedure where they judge themselves, and my "unreasonable behaviour" (para 31), but the simple fact is that they knew they were paid and they suffered no loss but decided to start a court claim anyway.

You could add to your current (11)

11. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.  The Claimant (their WS, para 20) can "believe that the Defendant was the driver" all they like but such belief has no basis in law nor indeed in the opinion of their own trade association's appeals body.

 

Edited March 27 by FTMDave
Outing of the driver corrected

[FTMDave]

It's not essential, but if you have time a persuasive case for the DE MINIMIS section and including your PAPLOC letter as an exhibit in your current (5) wouldn't go amiss.

[dx100uk]

for sake of not making any slip ups.

we need to see ALL the claimants WS inc exhibits.

dx

 

[Dave962]

Thanks all. Ill try and get rest sent over.

Yeah that para 20 was the one that got me, the sheer arrogance of it

there is a Parkonomy receipt also showing the car I drove with the wrong reg had not been paid for

 

Claimants WS Exhibits.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

Section 1.1 of the "lease" is an ace, because they will not have "obtained all necessary planning approvals and permissions,etc"

You should put the claimant to strict proof that plannig consent was obtained to use the area as a car park and planning consent was obtained to erect signage.

If they won't / can't, the terms of the lease have not been satisfied.

[Dave962]

Thanks all. I think I might need to have this emailed over quite shortly now, just to make sure the court receives my email ok.

[lookinforinfo]

If you haven't emailed it yet, as it is a deed it requires signatures and addresses from  directors of both companies along with the names and addresses of independent witnesses to the directors signatures. On top of that there is a requirement that Realty confirm that Deansgate can sign on their behalf.

the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. if you haven't admitted who was driving in any way so far, TP will have to provide some sort of evidence that you were the driver.

But even if you were the driver it's no biggy since they will lose anyway since it is just a number plate difference.

Edited March 28 by lookinforinfo