UKCPM/gladstone 2*MNPR vanishing windscreen PCN's claimform - Ltd business hire out of our vehicle - PHOENIX AVENUE, GREENWICH PENINSULA (PATROL) SE10 0ER, - WS Stage

[Nicky Boy]

Sorry CB, I was trying to rework your (rather disjointed) No Keeper Liability section, but really didn't have the time today.

A little more notice next time please

[Nicky Boy]

Anyway, in case it's any use, here's how far I got...

NO KEEPER LIABILITY:

9. Both PCNs are non-compliant with POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

10. Section 9 (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;

There is no period of parking mentioned on the PCNs. There is simply an incident time. A parking period obviously requires a starting and finishing time. There is neither on the PCNs.

11. Also, the notice to keeper MUST under section 9 (2) (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;

Nowhere, on either PCN have UK CPM invited the keeper to pay the charge.
Therefore, the claimant has failed to comply with the Act and the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is responsible for the debt. The claimant is put to strict proof that the defendant was the driver.

12.SECTION 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.(2)The right under this paragraph applies ONLY if—(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;
 
13. The claimant fails conditions that MUST be met for purposes of paragraph 4 in both Section 5 and Section 6;

14. Section 5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges;

The claimant's parking contract in Schedule 2, states that drivers loading or unloading are not to be ticketed, so the claimant did not have the right to enforce against the driver.

15. Section 6 states 6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9;
The PCN was not given in accordance with paragraph 9 since the warning that the keeper becomes liable if the charge has not been paid is totally missing.

[citroenberlingo]

updated. Thanks NB

[FTMDave]

I've finally got some free time.

If you can, can you please post up the latest version of the document after Nicky Boy's suggestions?

 

Remember that any proof you have - of loading for example - needs to have an exhibit number, and the WS needs to refer to that exhibit number.

 

Improvements to -

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS:

24. The signage does not state the timeframe in which if a motorist does not agree with their terms and condition to leave within. The Claimant is a member of the IPC trade association which allows a "sufficient" consideration period.  The government Code of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, allows a 5-minute period.  Time is needed to read the small print on the signage.  Both Codes of Practice allow a 10-minute grace period to exit the site.  The Claimant has not even tried to prove that the vehicles were on site for more than 15 minutes.  The vehicles entered, speedily unloaded, and left the premises well within this period.

25. The Claimant’s witness statement page 6 point 30 states that “the area was well lit” but failed to show the signage. And that “the motorist can read the signage prior to choosing to remain on the land.” But practically reading the signage takes time and the enforcement office took the pictures of the vehicle not
considering the above. The time period on photographed was of three minutes duration, that is well within the five-minute grace period that drivers are allowed to read the T&Cs and leave if they don't want to be bound by
them.

 

Improvement to -

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE:

26. Neither driver noticed any signs stating parking restrictions.  The Claimant has attached a large number of photographs of the incident in question, yet "strangely" has not shown any photograph of the sign at night as actually seen by the drivers.  A mock sign printed from a computer is not the same thing.  The signage visibility is still in doubt and gives the driver the benefit of that  doubt. If it was clearly visible, UKPC would have shown it.

[citroenberlingo]

Thanks all. I have emailed the bundle and received automatic confirmation from the court. 

I have also printed and posted it via special mail .

 

Can't thank enough for your help guys.

 

[FTMDave]

You need to send a copy to the fleecers too.

[citroenberlingo]

yeah done that too.

[Nicky Boy]

Just wait and see what happens now.

If they just read (and understand) the significant parts of your WS, I'd expect them to throw in the towel if they had any brains.

i won't state the obvious...

[brassnecked]

Hopefully the undoubted fact the vehicle was unloading, POFA c not met so cannot transfer to keeper notwithstanding their contract excludes unloading, so whole thing was a disaster.  If they don't discontinue, might not be good for them.

[Nicky Boy]

Dang!

Just realised something... I knew the van photo's looked off.

The hazard indicators were on.

Lights on, lights off.

Typical delivery man habit.

Too late for the WS, but if it did get to court...

[FTMDave]

What date is the court hearing?

[citroenberlingo]

30/08/2023

[FTMDave]

So what happened in this case?

[FTMDave]

It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing.

You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time.

The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users.

On 02/08/2023 at 14:10, citroenberlingo said:

I will keep you updated with the outcome.

Much appreciated

Evidently not.