Acknowledge LBC or give correct driver details?

misterman

It was a windscreen ticket. Does the timescale re: informing PCN(NW) and GBP of the driver's details matter? I only sent this info once the LBA arrived after ignoring all the previous ocrrespondence, so is PoFA still relevant? Thanks

Coupon-mad

misterman wrote: »

It was a windscreen ticket.

Does the timescale re: informing PCN(NW) and GBP of the driver's details matter? I only sent this info once the LBA arrived after ignoring all the previous correspondence, so is PoFA still relevant? Thanks

If you sent the driver's name and address after a Letter before Action and BEFORE the court papers then you told them in time, under POFA 2012. SO you are not liable - make this clear in your responses and complaints.

misterman

I've been readig a lot of simlar threads and came across this:

'Don't name the driver in your complaint (it will get back to the PPC and if they have any sense they will apply to have her name subsituted for yours on the court papers which may lose you a get-out as the RK (which we won't know about till we see the early papers)' from here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63307043#Comment_63307043

As the driver was named in the letter I sent can I assume GBP / PCN have missed thier chance to subsitute the name, given that the court papers arrived with the RK's details on them?

Coupon-mad

Yes they have got the wrong defendant - which needs to be the first point of your defence, since you have already lawfully discharged your liability under POFA 2012. If they did then substitute the name, the driver would have a valid objection because he could truthfully say he had never had any Notice to Driver (if this was a posted ANPR ticket?) nor had he ever been afforded the right to appeal to POPLA.

Make sure you lodge your bullet-point defence before day 28 from 'service' of the court papers.

misterman

Emails sent and letters are now ready to post. Just a quick question - do I sign the letters? (sorry if this is a daft question!).

Also, PCN(NW) have used two different addresses in recent correspondence. One in Stratford, plus one in Surrey (same as GBP sols). I previoulsy wrote to them to supply driver's details at an address in Blackpool which I found as their registered business and trading address on the net - I presume this won't be an issue? Their website pcnnw.co.uk that's registered with BPA doesn't exist!

Coupon-mad

Do not give your real signature, they have no need for it at all and you have seen what sort of bunch this lot are. Squiggle it at the end instead.

As for the differing address and email addy that doesn't exist, email the BPA and complain about this ambiguity and misinformation which makes it difficult for a person to communicate with this AOS member. Presumably you are already complaining to the BPA about some BPA code breaches (was yours a late Notice to Keeper, sorry I can't recall and am cooking the kids' tea, so no time to track back on your thread right now!).

misterman

Hi, quick update: letters of complaint have been sent, so far I've received a reply from BPA saying they will contact PCN(NW) with my complaints. I'm in the process of drafting my skeleton defence but have a few questions. I'm intending to make the following points:
1. the RK was not the driver & PCN(NW) and GBP sols were informed of the driver's name and address in writing after the LBA was received (ie before court action began)
2. the LBA was not compliant for several reasons
3. the amount claimed is not a valid estimate of loss
4. GBP have had their license suspended, plus the sol who's name is on the court papers has specifically had his licence suspended

My questions are:
-have I missed any other points worth making?
-given point 1, is point 3 worth making? ie the RK was not the driver, so why argue the amount claimed is unfair, as any amount would be unfair given the RK is being pursued, not the driver

misterman

Forgot to add, regarding the claimant suffering financial loss - it was a 'permit only' staff car park at a College, so is it safe to state no financial loss occured?

Coupon-mad

misterman wrote: »

Forgot to add, regarding the claimant suffering financial loss - it was a 'permit only' staff car park at a College, so is it safe to state no financial loss occurred?

Yes because PCN(NW) suffered no loss and are alleging this was a breach of conditions. The BPA CoP and the OFT have stated that such a charge for 'breach' can only be possibly recoverable if it's a pre-estimate of loss caused by the incident of parking (by the driver of that car on that day).

misterman

Here are the Pariculars of Claim, Im posting this in view of my proposed skeleton defence posted above, in case I've missed any other obvious points to make:

The Claimant's claim against the Defendant is for a breach of contract in respect of a notice issued to vehicle XXXX on XXXX at XXX following unauthorised parking event: NO VALID PERMIT ON DISPLAY. The Terms and Conditions to which the Defendant agreed to be bound by using the site were clearly displayed in prominent places throughout the site. The Claimant's claim is inclusive of recovery costs as per the terms and conditions, notice of which was given to the defendant by way of a parking charge notice and numbered XXX. And the claimant claims 160.00. The Claimant also claims interst thereon pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8.000% per annum calculated with a daily rate of 0.00 to the date hereof amounting to 7.87.

The claimant is listed as PCN(NW) LTD, the claimant's signature is typed as XXXXXXX, the Claimant's Solicitor is typed as Roy George.