Stupidly ignored parking charge notice- hearing today update

D_P_Dance

It wastes their time, and may impress a judge.  .

Cbay27

D_P_Dance said:

It wastes their time, and may impress a judge.  .

Not sure I understand this comment?!

D_P_Dance

It seems totally clear to me, I do not see how I could reword it so that you could.  

Cbay27

D_P_Dance said:

It seems totally clear to me, I do not see how I could reword it so that you could.  

Are you talking about mentioning the without prejudice offer, or something else?

didgeridoooo

Hi, I have just sent you a PM with all the info I can find, hope some of it is of use.

Cbay27

Still trying to compose some kind of defence here.
Just re reading POFA and came across this:

'Schedule 4, 9, 2 (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).' 

On my first PCN there is an issue date but no date of sending. Is an issue date a sending date? Is this a point of defence or am I clutching at straws??

KeithP

You have one week to file an Acknowledgment of Service.
Have you done that yet?

Cbay27

KeithP said:

You have one week to file an Acknowledgment of Service.
Have you done that yet?

Yes I have done that today

Umkomaas

Cbay27 said:

Still trying to compose some kind of defence here.
Just re reading POFA and came across this:

'Schedule 4, 9, 2 (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).' 

On my first PCN there is an issue date but no date of sending. Is an issue date a sending date? Is this a point of defence or am I clutching at straws??

I wouldn't bother arguing any Rizla paper difference you might think exists.  

Cbay27

Ok so as far as I can see, this is all I can include for 2 and 3:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but not the driver, but liability is denied.  

3.  The defendant was under the impression she had paid for the period of parking by calling RingGo on the day of parking. Unbeknown to the defendant, the transaction was not successful. This was not the intent and it is the defendant’s position that the claimaint’s system failed. The defendant has proof of the telephone call.

Not sure about adding the proof of the phone call

Going back to pofa, for point 8, can I include denied in this case, is I'm pretty sure they have complied?

8.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).