As in not providing insurance documents as evidence that there are 3 other drivers on the policy?

Thank you so much for the advice. I have prepared a WS, could you Kindly check I have the POFA 7.2(e) angle correct here or not? The notice to driver being the PCN which I have attached. Also should I challenge their WS with respect to the confusion about whom they are claiming from the keeper or the driver? Hi, thank you very much for all the advice so far. I have prepared my WS which I need to submit tomorrow. Could you kindly see if this will be sufficient? Witness Statement I am ----- defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. 1. This matter relates to a manned barrier entry pay point car park with pay & display and on the material day, 10.1.2017, The driver bought a ticket for 2 hours from the man at the barrier. 2. The driver purchased a valid ticket to cover the estimated duration of stay from the man at the manned barrier pay point, prior to entry to the carpark. 3. The man at the barrier pay point did not state any conditions of parking and only asked how many hours the driver wanted to stay and then produced a ticket upon payment. 4. Exhibit 1, shows a photo of the car park entrance, the barrier, the pay point sign and a sign displaying the cost of parking. No contractual sign stating terms and conditions can be seen, furthermore the sign the claimant is referring to is not visible anywhere prior to entering the car park at the barrier. 5. Even if the signs at the entrance pointed to other signs inside the car park, it would be an invitation to treat. For example; shop sign saying 50% off most items. Such a sign does not force people to buy anything when they come in nor does it force the shop keeper to sell everything at 50% off. In the case of this car park, the driver may accept the first invitation but if the driver does not like the terms of the contract once entered the car park, the driver is not obliged to be bound by them nor does the driver have to leave. 6. Exhibit 2, shows the sign the claimant is referring to and is well inside the car park. The sign ONLY refers to the driver of the vehicle. I was NOT the driver of the vehicle and therefore did not enter into any contract with the claimant. 7. The claimant refers to POFA 2012 allowing the creditor to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, POFA 2012 paragraph 7.2(e) states “Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment be made.” Exhibit 3 which serves as the notice to driver does not identify who the creditor is at all. Therefore, the claimant has not met the conditions of POFA 2012. 8. In VCS vs Sarah Quayle, Deputy District Judge Gourley states: “For me to find that there has been a breach of contract I have to find that the defendant, that is, Miss Quayle now Miss Wilson, entered into that contract by virtue of the fact that she was the driver at the time that the parking charge notice was issued and at the time that that car was parked in the Princes Dock area on 28th December 2014.” I was not the driver at the time and did not enter into a contract with the claimant. Exhibit 4 (Vehicle insurance papers) show two additional named drivers who could have been the driver of the vehicle. Deputy District Judge Gourley further states: “Therefore it strikes me that there is a simple question that the court has to ask itself. Is there evidence produced by the claimant to show that Miss Quayle, and I will call her Miss Quayle for the remainder of the judgment, is there evidence to show from the claimant that Miss Quayle was on a balance of probabilities the driver on 28th December 2014 when the car was parked in the Princes Dock area? The claimant has produced absolutely no evidence that the defendant was the driver and simply says that they are entitled to presume that the defendant was the driver because effectively she was the registered keeper at the time.” The claimant has not provided any evidence to show whether I was the driver at the time. Furthermore, Deputy District Judge Gourley further states: “I disagree. I disagree particularly in light of the evidence that has been produced by Miss Quayle showing that there are two other people who are on the contract of insurance for this car. She is not the owner of the car albeit she is the registered keeper. The owner of the car is her partner, Mr Green, who also appears on the contract of insurance as one of the named drivers. She says in her witness statement that she was not the driver, but even if I ignore everything that Miss Quayle has produced and look solely at the evidence that is produced by the claimant, the claimant comes nowhere close to satisfying me on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was the driver at the time. They may have had a claim had they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, but they have not and they cannot pursue Miss Quayle on the basis of a breach of contract in the absence of any evidence at all that she was actually the driver at the time of the incurrence of the parking charge notice.” The defendant rejects any liability, rejects having ever entered into a contract with the claimant, was not the driver of the vehicle at the time and the claimant has not met the conditions of POFA 2012. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Evidence is attached PCN.pdf

I have found this on another forum: - Penalty charge not incorporated into the contract - This will be applicable where the signage was not clear or was not visible to the motorist until after he parked his car. This argument is based on the case Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, where it was held that a carpark could not enforce a disclaimer on the back of a parking ticket, since a contract had already been formed before the ticket was provided. Now according to the driver, the car park entrance had a barrier that was manned where cash was given to purchase a ticket from the cashier. The contract sign was not visible until after the driver parked the car. I have checked the pictures and although there is a sign at the barrier, it is not the same as the contract sign. The map they have given in the witness statement however labels that sign as the contract sign?

Also, as I was not the driver of the vehicle at that time, if I am able to find who the driver was at that time, should I take said driver to the court as a witness with me? As their signs clearly state 'You, the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms' I am not the driver therefore I have not entered into any contract?

The court clerk/phone support did state however that they had sent a letter (which I did not recieve, I was abroad at the time as well).

Thank you very much for all your efforts. I am a bit confused to the witness statement requirement, I did not receive any letter from the court notifying me of such a requirement, am I just supposed to know it? That doesn't sound quite fair. Also, I had to call the court up to find out what was going on with the case as I had not heard from them in months, at which point they gave me the date of the hearing. I specifically told the court clerk/phone support that I had NOT received any communication.

I have not told them who the driver was. I was not the driver, nor was I there at the time. Can just saying this in court hold up? Also as they have produced a NTK in the witness statement, which I don't believe I received around the date stated on it, are they still within their right to pursue me as the keeper and NOT the driver? Thanks

Sorry, by fine I meant Parking charge. The signs specifically state ' You the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms' You agree to pay consideration in the form of a 'parking charge' in the sum of £100....

Thanks for that DragonFly1967, I have had a thorough read of that thread and it is indeed very similar to mine. However a few seemingly important messages seem to have been PM'd to the OP of that thread. Also the WS from Gladstones keeps stating the defendant should have seen the signs etc, but the defendant was NOT the driver. Any idea how I could pursue this angle further? thank you

I have managed to find some pictures from another recent thread on this forum which someone above kindly linked. I have attached the pictures. From what I can see there is no mention on the signs of any fine for overstaying and the signs state the 'You'. As I wasn't the driver at the time no contract was made with me so I should not be liable? Also I was unable to find anything with regards to the Witness Statement I should have sent? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you walmer_st_carpark.pdf

How did this go? Did they turn up? Was it thrown out? I am in a similar situation and getting very nervous.

Also about the witness statement, should I submit one tomorrow? Thanks

Page 6 on the second one I uploaded, version 2a has the black boxes removed. Thanks

Thank you very much for the replies. Court hearing is next Tuesday. I have not been to take any photos as this carpark is close to 100miles from where I live. As mentioned, I was not the driver of the vehicle. Should I go take some pictures myself? I believe it is a generic sign. I have removed the black boxes from the sigs and the pictures at the end. Thank you Gladstones - witstat-2a.pdf

Hi, my car was parked at Walmer street in Manchester and received a PCN for exceeding time limit. I was not the driver and so no ticket was received by myself. A few months later I received a 'Final Reminder' and then a 'Letter before claim'. I tried to get information from SIP as to what and when of the situation but they didn't want to know. Court proceedings began and I filed a defence which I have pasted below. Now on Friday I received the Claimants witness statement for the court date which is next week. The statement is dated 5th March, not sure why it has been delivered so much after. This statement is quite long and I have attached it to this post. Any help with this would be extremely appreciated. The previous advice I was following was quite confident that it wouldn't go to court. I even chose arbitration, but the claimant declined. Thank you Defence: 1. I am the Defendant, and reside at . 2.The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant. 3. A valid ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the*estimated*duration of stay. 4.*If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met. 5.a)*No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 5.b)*Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 5.c)*No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 6.*It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to SIP PARKING LTD. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case. 7. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. 8.The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose its conditions where there is no public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors. 9.*The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor cost and interest. The Particulars of Claim are spectacularly deficient and woefully inadequate to show a cause of action. 10.*The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success. I believe the facts stated in this defence are true. Gladstones - witstat-2.pdf