SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND COSTS OF £600 GRANTED AGAINST EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ELMS LEGAL LTD FOR ISSUING A NOTICE TO KEEPER OUTSIDE THE RELEVANT PERIOD.
The complex world of legal parking notices has its nuances. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 para 9(2)(4), stipulates the clear parameters within which a Notice to Keeper should be issued. Recent proceedings involving Excel Parking Services Ltd highlight the consequences of not adhering to these legal parameters.
Background
Sarah found herself embroiled in a legal entanglement when she received a Notice to Keeper from Excel Parking Services Ltd. On a cursory glance, it might have seemed like a straightforward case. However, the notice had been served outside the relevant period, contrary to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012's stipulations.
Choosing not to take the matter lightly, She initially approached Contestor Legal Services for guidance.
Initial Appeals
Contestor Legal Services, in its initial appeal, pinpointed the core defect in the notice: it precluded Excel from pursuing her as the registered keeper. Excel Parking Services Ltd was undeterred. They continued to insist that she either reveal the driver's name or face proceedings based on the presumption that she was, in fact, the driver.
Despite these demands and the clear indications that the notice was defective, Excel Parking Services Ltd pressed ahead, initiating legal proceedings against her as both the registered keeper and driver.
Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Having reviewed the claim's contents, Sarah's legal team discerned a significant flaw in the proceedings. They recommended making an application for the claim to be struck out and a summary judgment.
The day of the hearing came, and representing Sarah was the astute Mr. Jackson Yamba acting for Lawrence and Associates Solicitors. With keen insights and legal acumen, Mr. Yamba presented a compelling argument:
Presumption vs. Evidence: There exists no presumption in law that a registered keeper is the driver. Without concrete evidence indicating Ms. Beckwith's role as the driver, the claim was baseless.
Lack of Future Evidence: The claimant provided no evidence that would be available at a potential final hearing to support their case.
Defective Notice: Excel Parking Services Ltd's initial error in serving the notice outside the stipulated period legally prevented them from pursuing Ms. Beckwith as the registered keeper.
Verdict
The Court, convinced by Mr. Yamba's argument, ruled in sarah's favour. The claim was summarily dismissed, with a judgment in her favour, and Excel Parking Services Ltd was ordered to pay costs amounting to £600.
Conclusion
The case serves as a potent reminder for companies to meticulously follow the letter of the law. A seemingly minor oversight, such as serving a notice outside the stipulated period, can lead to unnecessary legal complications and costs. It also underscores the importance of seeking qualified legal counsel when confronted with such issues.