Time limit for receiving PCN through the post.

monkeez

Thanks, paragraphs i've changed are below:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied as the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle when it was parked on the material date.

3.       The first time the Defendant heard about this parking charge was via an undated Parking Charge Notice (PCN) letter received after July 29th 2019. Since then the Defendant has received six more demands for payment from UKCPM and another company called Debt Recovery Plus. The Defendant has felt very intimidated by this bombardment of demands.

Furthermore, the original PCN from UK CPM was issued to the Defendant more than four weeks from the incident date and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

Redx

Ukcpm just lost this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6114578/ukcpm-claim-form-received-allocated-space-access-by-keyfob/p1

Not the same as yours but I am sure you can glean some nuggets and encouragement from it

Your defence looks ok to me but wait for further comments

monkeez

Thanks Redx, i'll have a read through it and await further feedback.

Le_Kirk

You might want to read the relevant paragraphs of the PoFA again as it talks about "days" starting with the day after the ........ rather than weeks or a month.

monkeez

Updated to mention days rather than weeks:

3.       The first time the Defendant heard about this parking charge was via an undated Parking Charge Notice (PCN) letter received after July 29th 2019. Since then the Defendant has received six more demands for payment from UKCPM and another company called Debt Recovery Plus. The Defendant has felt very intimidated by this bombardment of demands.

Furthermore, the original PCN from UK CPM was issued to the Defendant later than 14 days, beginning with the day after the incident date stated on the PCN. Therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

Coupon-mad

I would add some sort of explanation from local knowledge as to what the car park is (residential? business/retail?) and that it is your belief that there was no breach of contract and the driver was authorised because (why? the family live there or the driver was visiting a resident?).

monkeez

The car park is apparently land 'owned' by a one man band car servicing business.
It is adjacent to a local brewery and quite a few people park on that land when visiting the brewery. 

monkeez

Does this make sense?
Also, i know since the incident the signage at the car park has been upgraded.

From local knowledge the land is adjacent to a local brewery. The land is quite often used by people visiting the brewery and it is the Defendants belief that that there was no breach of contract and the driver was also visiting the brewery.

Furthermore, the original PCN from UK CPM was issued to the Defendant later than 14 days, beginning with the day after the incident date stated on the PCN. Therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's enough to set the scene and it can be added to, at WS and evidence stage later on.

monkeez

Great, thanks all.