Help/Advice needed regarding PCN

Hot_chocolate20

Does this read well? Thanks
#17

 The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time.  Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law. Section 11 (1) (c) of POFA 2012 requires keeper liability to be sought by application to the Secretary of State via its agents (DVLA). The Claimant made no such application but imported the Defendant’s personal data from a third party (ZZPS) instead.

# 18

The Claimant has as of recent made some significant modifications to the car park, it bears little resemblance to even two years ago. The recent amendments include the payment methods and exaggerated parking signs which two years ago was not the case, neither did the Claimant offer the option to pay for parking through any other means other than cash. The driver of the vehicle had a disability which had and continues to have a long-term adverse effect of their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activity thus needed more time pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. That coupled with having a two-year-old on their person and further having a payment method different to that which was accepted by the Claimant’s parking facility immediately makes the possibility of paying the £0.60p parking cost non-viable. 

Coupon-mad

Hot_chocolate20 said:

Does this read well? Thanks

#15
In the alternative, the defence is prejudiced and the court is invited to note that, contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Letter Before Claim was never issued to the Defendant by the Claimant (to the best of the Defendant’s knowledge). The claimant further omitted to give regard to the Practice Direction – Pre- Action Conduct Protocols, in particular sections 6,8, and 9. The Defendant invites the court to note the claimant’s complete disregard to complying with the Practice Direction – Pre- Action Conduct Protocols.  Further, the stylised Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and incoherent, lacking specificity re the status of the contracting parties and failing to detail any contract, conduct or liability that could give rise to a cause of action.

#17

 The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time.  Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law. Section 11 (1) (c) of POFA 2012 requires keeper liability to be sought by application to the Secretary of State via its agents (DVLA). The Claimant made no such application but imported the Defendant’s personal data from a third party (ZZPS) instead.

# 18

The Claimant has as of recent made some significant modifications to the car park, it bears little resemblance to even two years ago. The recent amendments include the payment methods and exaggerated parking signs which two years ago was not the case, neither did the Claimant offer the option to pay for parking through any other means other than cash. The driver of the vehicle had a disability which had and continues to have a long-term adverse effect of their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activity thus needed more time pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. That coupled with having a two-year-old on their person and further having a payment method different to that which was accepted by the Claimant’s parking facility immediately makes the possibility of paying the £0.60p parking cost non-viable. 

Looks good, as long as this is TRUE that you can deny being the driver:

they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

But this is clunky:

having a two-year-old on their person.

Which solicitor issued the claim? 

If it was DCBLegal, their POC add the fake debt recovery double costs to the PCN and just call it a claim for £160. 

Hot_chocolate20

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good, as long as this is TRUE that you can deny being the driver:

they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

But this is clunky:

having a two-year-old on their person.

Which solicitor issued the claim? 

If it was DCBLegal, their POC add the fake debt recovery double costs to the PCN and just call it a claim for £160. 

Thank you @Coupon-mad - I'll remove the clunky bit. Yes it's all true. The bit I'm not sure 100% sure on is Section 11 1(c) of POFA I understand i's requirements but have seen on the SAR the parking company sent me contained accompanying notes left there rightly or wrongly which states 'keeper details imported from ZZPS' t
Yes it was DCDLegal - I completely agree re the double recovery costs

Redx

Zzps are a debt collection company , so can sub contract for the claimant , but any alleged debt stays with the claimant , the parking company

KeithP

Here's some more clunkiness...

The Claimant has as of recent made...

Replace as of recent with recently.

Hot_chocolate20

Redx said:

Zzps are a debt collection company , so can sub contract for the claimant , but any alleged debt stays with the claimant , the parking company

Yes I'm aware of who they are...what I was unsure of is Section 11 1(c) of POFA requires the claimant to satisfy the proper means of obtaining a keeper's details ie through an application to the Secretary of State through one of it's agencies (DVLA) however in this instance the claimant hasnt followed that process but seemed to have imported the Keeper details from ZZPS (a third party) if I'm making any sense

KeithP

Hot_chocolate20 said:

Redx said:

Zzps are a debt collection company , so can sub contract for the claimant , but any alleged debt stays with the claimant , the parking company

Yes I'm aware of who they are...what I was unsure of is Section 11 1(c) of POFA requires the claimant to satisfy the proper means of obtaining a keeper's details ie through an application to the Secretary of State through one of it's agencies (DVLA) however in this instance the claimant hasnt followed that process but seemed to have imported the Keeper details from ZZPS (a third party) if I'm making any sense

If what you say is true, then the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

As you say, POFA is quite clear on that - the registered keeper's details must be obtained from the DVLA.

Hot_chocolate20

KeithP said:

Here's some more clunkiness...

The Claimant has as of recent made...

Replace as of recent with recently.

Thanks @Coupon-mad's suggestion

Hot_chocolate20

KeithP said:

Hot_chocolate20 said:

Redx said:

Zzps are a debt collection company , so can sub contract for the claimant , but any alleged debt stays with the claimant , the parking company

Yes I'm aware of who they are...what I was unsure of is Section 11 1(c) of POFA requires the claimant to satisfy the proper means of obtaining a keeper's details ie through an application to the Secretary of State through one of it's agencies (DVLA) however in this instance the claimant hasnt followed that process but seemed to have imported the Keeper details from ZZPS (a third party) if I'm making any sense

If what you say is true, then the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

As you say, POFA is quite clear on that - the registered keeper's details must be obtained from the DVLA.

Thanks @k@KeithP that's the clarity I needed. I'll upload the doc shortly once I've figured out how to do that

Hot_chocolate20

This may sound like a silly question but silly I must be. Is the Southampton case officially known as the Britannia v Crosby Case? Thanks