PCN, driver not registered keeper DCBL

nosferatu1001

No NtK attached. But as pointed out, its a doddle to read (2)f and see if those words are on teh NtK.

Nosy

Only 1 out of 4 of the PCN don't t have words, which wws the first NTK i appealled. 

Coupon-mad

Yes that is right - easy to spot the non-POFA one.

Nosy

Can some help me understand this better please? From the POFA 9 (2)

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;


If the claimant stated within the NTK 'failure to pay for full duration of stay" does this comply? I am under the inpredsion the there needs to be two different time to specify the period. Eg how long was the vehicle observed for, if that makes sense.

Reducing my defence paragraphs wasn't too sure about this

Redx

looking at those car park and signage pictures it certainly makes this thread true

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237136/premier-parking-logistics-poor-maintenance-of-their-birmingham-car-parks#latest

Coupon-mad

I think it is missing a period of parking but a Judge might think 'issue time' is good enough so you can mention it, and see.  

Certainly the non-POFA one is easy to expose the lack of 9(2)f keeper liability warning.

Nosy

Thanks again.
Below is my final draft of the Defence. I will post the CC shortly and email both Defence/ CC tomorrow.

@Coupon-mad - is there anything else (besides Paragraph 3) you would advise me mentioning regarding the other 2 outstanding PCN's which they have not included in this claim?  also does the CC mean there will be two hearings? 

@Umkomaas Spell/Grammar check done!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

 

Mr Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics

(Claimant) 

- and -  

                    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, not the driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied. A contract requires three elements, Offer, Consideration and acceptance. As the defendant is the registered keeper and was not inside of the vehicle, this means the defendant did not see any terms therefore it is denied that any contract with the claimant was formed.

3. The registered keeper submitted a subject access request and was sent eight items which consisted of 4 email screenshots of four outstanding PCN’s. This claim is for two out of four of the outstanding PCN’s which seems strange as the defendant clearly informed the claimant of the driver details for all four PCN’s. The claimant is aware that the defendant was not the driver for all outstanding PCN’s.

 4. The defendant visited the site and provided multiple reasons as to why the PCN cannot be enforced including unclear and poorly maintained signs, a poorly maintained car park, unreliable ticket service and more importantly not being the driver at the time. The Defendant also informed the claimant of the failures and requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. The claimant failed to state that the creditor does not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver as required by (9) (2)(e) & (f)(ii), to state the period of parking, no mention of how long the parking observation took place or the period of parking as required by 9 (2) (a) of the same act. The claimant has failed to meet the conditions for the purposes of Paragraph 4, thus the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle does not apply.

5. The defendant made it clear in October 2019 that any further contact will be harassment as the defendant was only the registered keeper, not driver. The claimant and their debt collection agency ignored this and continued to contact the defendant even after knowing the details of the driver.

6.  The claimant has deliberately attempted to mislead the Defendant in to thinking that liability cannot be transferred to the driver because of a deadline passing. The defendant provided the claimant with a published article from SCS Law’s legally qualified staff for the British Parking Association regarding the period of transferring liability to a driver stating parking companies cannot arbitrarily impose a 28 day 'limit' on transferring liability before court action. The Defendant continued to receive messages and the defendant made it clear that the claimant will face a counterclaim on the basis of knowingly harassing and processing the data of the wrong person, without reasonable cause (breaching KADOE as well as the DPA 2018).

Coupon-mad

Don't add 'Mr' in front of parties' names.    Put the names exactly as they appear on the claim.

is there anything else (besides Paragraph 3) you would advise me mentioning regarding the other 2 outstanding PCN's which they have not included in this claim?

No.

  also does the CC mean there will be two hearings? 

What do you mean? 'CC'?

Nosy

Finally all done for now, so stressed! 
Thank you all for your help and comments and especially @Coupon-mad, thanks for all your help again, i really appreciate it.  

Below is the full Counterclaim, i hope it can helps others too

Nosy

Coupon-mad said:

Don't add 'Mr' in front of parties' names.    Put the names exactly as they appear on the claim.

is there anything else (besides Paragraph 3) you would advise me mentioning regarding the other 2 outstanding PCN's which they have not included in this claim?

No.

  also does the CC mean there will be two hearings? 

What do you mean? 'CC'?

CounterClaim - Will the defendant have to attend more than 1 hearing because of a counterclaim, or is it usually dealt with at the first hearing?

Removed the 'Mr'