Group Nexus ANPR PCN Claimform - Cannon Lane Retail Park, Tonbridge, TN9

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN was for £85 [the maximum that can be charged according to PoFA2012] then they have added another £70 for damages which they have failed to describe what the damages were. Thus the amount claimed is a penalty and the £70 is around a further 80% more added to the account. 

The PCN was issued under PoFA2012 which means the keeper is responsible for the amount if the  amount has not been paid within 28 days. Schedule 4 S9[f]

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (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 have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

As it is obvious that the Creditor does not know who the driver was or they would have been pursuing them rather than hedging their bets by trying to pursue the driver and the keeper  they cannot be pursuing the  driver. 

This only leaves the keeper who is the person they should be pursuing anyway when they don't know who was driving. PoFA 2012 is quite clear on this as noted above from Section9 [f]. 

 

 

[Hopgarden]

@lookinforinfo thanks for that.

That makes sense but what does this mean for me?

Does it mean they will have better chance of success from judge against just the keeper? or will it still boil down to the arguments put forward re the extra amounts added, the signage and any other point I may use in my defence?

thanks

[dx100uk]

you do know you dont have to put @(person) in your posts?

everyone that has posted on a thread automatically (like you and this post) gets an alert when is submitted.

you dont have to ping alert by using @

 

[Hopgarden]

No, sorry I didnt know that, lol.....I saw others doing it in other threads so thought it was needed, as ive said im not good with tech so still learning. 

[FTMDave]

LFI's arguments are all excellent points that will go in your Witness Statement to undermine their case.

[lookinforinfo]

On 29/12/2023 at 10:43, Hopgarden said:

@lookinforinfo thanks for that.

That makes sense but what does this mean for me?

 

Well the idea is to make the Judge think that they should be pursuing the keeper and not the driver because you as keeper are not liable now as the PCN does not comply with PoFA. They have said that they are pursuing you as the driver and the keeper which the Court does not accept. The rogues have to pick on one and if they pick on the driver they have to show some evidence that the driver is the keeper which is difficult.for them.

That is why we ask not to appeal since the keeper will often give themselves away by saying "I did not see the signs " for example rather than saying "the driver did not...."

So all I have done is give the Judge a little help in deciding why he should agree that the keeper is the rightful person for the persons to be taken to Court.

 

Edited January 1 by lookinforinfo

[Hopgarden]

 

Thank you LFI that makes sense.

Just an update. I have received the allocation of small track claim. I have completed the N180 and am about to post. 1 copy to business centre - micky mouse court and 1 copy to claimants sols.

I have received a reply re my SARS request from DCB legal pluis a reply to CPR 31.14 request. They have just sent copies of the threatening letters they have previously sent me a and a copy of lots of pictures of the car parking signs in situ within the said car park.

will keep you uodated

[Nicky Boy]

22 minutes ago, Hopgarden said:

I have received a reply re my SARS request from DCB legal pluis a reply to CPR 31.14 request. They have just sent copies of the threatening letters they have previously sent me a and a copy of lots of pictures of the car parking signs in situ within the said car park.

Is there anything we haven't seen on the thread yet?

[dx100uk]

27 minutes ago, Hopgarden said:

1 copy to business centre - micky mouse court

its not a court as such - it's a bulk clearing centre.

28 minutes ago, Hopgarden said:

1 copy to claimants sols.

dont give them email/phone on their copy

dx

 

[Hopgarden]

No Nothing new, no contracts or planning permissions etc. just lots of pictures of the signs and copies of the demands they have sent previously.

I havent given any contact details apart from address

many thanks

[lookinforinfo]

Can you please post up what you received from your SAR

[dx100uk]

open

dx

[Hopgarden]

Thank you, Im just trying to get them all uploaded

[Hopgarden]

 SAR request, 

I have also received the Notification of allocation to the small claims track hearing for beginning nov 2024

 

 

2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf

[jk2054]

post up the hearing notice please

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states 

                  FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY

in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat.

Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there.

For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute"

How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court.

I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................

[dx100uk]

4 hours ago, Hopgarden said:

 SAR request, 

I have also received the Notification of allocation to the small claims track hearing for beginning nov 2024

 

next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf..

we aint got all day to download load single page files

2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf