OPS ANPR PCN Claimform - 17mins stay - VANTAGE POINT, BRIGHTON, BN1 4GW,

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry BMX I cannot have you badmouthing dingbats. They are miles better than OPS.

[lookinforinfo]

No they haven't and BMX has to have his WS in tomorrow.

So could he hold his one up for a day or two or just say on his WS to the Court that he  hasn't received their WS.

Edited May 11, 2023 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

I will throw in my thoughts-disjointed ma.y they be and in no particular order this time.

First H. Green at the bottom of the statement was either written by a three year old or he printed his name. Which means that he hasn't  signed that he was telling the truth. Put him to strict proof that it was his signature on the document.

 

OPS still don't get PoFA  if they thought OPS V Wilshaw was a correct interpretation of the Act. It was on Appeal and the Judge got it wrong. It IS necessary to prove OPS do have a valid contract with the  landowners. Schedule 4 S2 [1] 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;

 

Don't forget Jopson v Homeguard and the lack of signage at the entrance means it is only an offer to treat.

 

I found a case going back 200 hundred years where silence does not mean that you accept the contract.

www.lawteacher.net/cases/felthouse-v-bindley.php  read the case  and you will see it adds another string to your bow  since that case indicates that staying in the car park does not mean that you have accepted the terms.

 

And of course you were not parked since the car was still occupied with the engine running . 

 

if you were not the driver  then you are not liable as the keeper since the PCN is not compliant . No parking period mentioned since the ANPR times include times when you were  driving to and from the parking spot so you were actually stationary for less that the time they are claiming.. Also they missed out another part of the required section in PoFA Schedule S( [f][2] "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;"  The piece in brackets is missing from their PCN.  

if the Judge accepts that the PCN is non compliant and you were not driving that is another reason to quash the ticket. Even if you were the driver they have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt since you were not liable as the keeper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry for being so late with this-it's been a long day. Although you have to remove your OPS V  Wilshaw since it was appealed and  OPS won amazingly I have put in a bit to show that this Judge should be aware of the necessity of having a contract between OPS and the land owner, not  OPS and the motorist.

In the Wilshaw case they didn't produce a proper contract the first time which is why they have produced the land registry confirmation of who the landowner is. 

There are another 30  odd pages I believe you said some of which will be their signage. We may be able to critique those though you probably might be tight on time if you have to make more additions and alterations.

 

I have just remembered that their PCN included a £70 extra " nominal charge". I believe that in itself may render the PCN non compliant if not actually  unlawful since there is no mention of extra charges in the Act. Indeed the Act states quite clearly that the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage. And they did not stipulate a figure on the signage anyway.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry one more thing. Harry is asking that even though he cannot be ar*ed to turn up and even if another advocate doesn't turn up, he still wants the legal fee to be paid ??????   I didn't know it was charity night at the Court.

[lookinforinfo]

Harry  is  clutching at straws -obviously he can see this case slipping away.

Nothing to worry about but if he is allowed the Supplementary WS then by all means kick his quibbles into the long grass. [That wasn't a euphemism!].

[lookinforinfo]

Don't forget to query why Harry appears to print his name rather than sign By printing it does that absolve him from any possible untruths that may have been in his WS? And if that is not his signature should the WS be accepted at all.