Subject Access Request

Coupon-mad

That's a POFA NTK if you are the registered keeper (not hirer/lessee) and it arrived between day 29 and day 56 from the parking event, as per para 8 of the POFA.

- It doesn't mention anything about a discount for payment within 14 days.

Doesn't have to.  There was a windscreen PCN that did.

- They have not specified the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover

Who cares, they can't add/recover any additional 'costs' above £100 (only court fees and £50 max legal costs).  Read all the posts about the abuse of process argument - it's fully explained in the template defence in the NEWBIES thread.

- They have included several photographs of the car parked on hashes (including one with a barely visible ticket on the windscreen), but no photographs of any signage.

A SAR does not ahve to show any signs, that's not ''your personal data''.  They'll show the signs in evidence later.

You can't argue no keeper liability unless the NTK was not received between day 29 and day 56, or if this is a hire/lease vehicle and the lease firm named the hirer as you, and then MB failed to meet paras 13 and 14 of the POFA Sch4.

Umkomaas

One of the key issues to always consider in determining if a NtK is PoFA compliant are the dates of 'contravention' and the date of issue of the NtK. As you've redacted both, we can't help on that score. 

nottinghamdriver44

So I lost this case today. Despite establishing agreement that I was not the driver, the judge decided to award the claimant their full costs.

£100 parking charge
£55 ‘admin charge’
£50 solicitors fees
£25 court fee

£230 out of pocket. I tried to argue schedule 4 of the POFA states that keeper liability is limited to £100 specified in original NTK, but the judge felt that the act does not limit the right to recover additional costs, including the £55 admin charge. 

I did use the template defence for additional charges but it seems not to have helped
me here.

D_P_Dance

IMO the judge was wrong to award admin costs, read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

nosferatu1001

So you conducted an entire claim without getting an y assistance?
Brave but not always sensible, as you have found out. 

Umkomaas

As @D_P_Dance has shown you above, there is a powerful court judgment available for you, which you could have shown to the Judge. Where have you been for the past 9 months?  We could have put you on a much stronger footing to deal with the court claim.