Advice Needed - Please!

sdmitch

Before going into my request for advice, I jus want to say thanks all of those of you who take the time and make the effort to help those of us who have fallen foul of the cowboys running these endless parking scams - THANKS!

Ok - here's my situation in a nutshell (names or exact details changed to protect the innocent - me!).
FCN issued by Napier in January 2019 for Failure to clearly display a valid ticket/permit - claim for £100
Usual threatening letters addressed to me as registered keeper - but note that my legal name is incorrect (because it was incorrect at DVLA - i.e used Jim instead of legal name James (names altered))
I was not the driver.
Driver had purchased a valid ticket using Ringo phone app - receipt available and bank statement showing payment. parking was for 24 hours - £4 plus fees - driver paid  late - one hour after parking by which time she was 70 miles away in London. 
I ignored all Napier correspondence who then passed it to BWL who then referred to the claim as a PCN - I ignored all of their threatening correspondence until I eventually called them and told them the parking charge had been paid for on the day of parking (I did NOT advise them that I was NOT the driver) and that I had a receipt to prove it. They asked me to send them a copy - which I refused and advised them it was not my responsibility to run Napier's Accounting Department for them. I asked them (politely) not to ever call or contact me again - they ignored that request! (what a surprise).
I have continued to ignore their ever more threatening letters and demands until receiving a CCBC Claim Form on 2/12/20 for - I have not yet acknowledged receipt or performed any further action. 
CCBC Claim form is for almost £250 and includes the original FCN (£100) , interest, the usual £60 recovery costs, £25 Court Fee and Legal representative's costs of £50. 
Hopefully I haven't fallen foul of any of the advice on the Forum here but would appreciate some simple guidance on the way forward and hopefully getting this thrown out.
Do I bother with an SAR request to Napier, or is it now too late for that?.  
 As ever, your advice is appreciated.
Thanks.

KeithP

sdmitch said:

I have continued to ignore their ever more threatening letters and demands until receiving a CCBC Claim Form on 2/12/20 for - I have not yet acknowledged receipt or performed any further action. 

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

sdmitch said:

Do I bother with an SAR request to Napier, or is it now too late for that?

Yes, send a SAR. Never too late.

sdmitch

Thanks for the prompt reply - issue date is 02 December 2020

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd December, you have until Monday 21st December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th January 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Ralph-y

some reading for you

link to court section in newbies thread
.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

Ralph

sdmitch

Thanks for your help so far. Just about to file my defence (due tomorrow - late I know!): Here's the relevant parts of the defence for comment please (some data redacted):

2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question (XXXXXX) on the date of the alleged contractual breach (05/01/2019) and no contract, implied or otherwise was formed between the claimant and the defendant.

 3.  The defendant first became aware of the alleged contractual breach when he received a letter from the claimant that the claimant claims was sent on February 12th 2019. The claimant claimed that the contractual breach was a Failure to clearly display a valid ticket/permit and an amount of £100 was outstanding. The claimant did not comply with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

The keeper was advised by the driver of the vehicle (his daughter) that the parking charge in question (£4.40 including fees & VAT) for a 24-hour stay had been paid on the day by debit card and the amount had been taken from her bank account 2 days later. The defendant therefore considered this matter closed.

It should be noted that the claimant at this time was seeking a Fixed Charge Notice fee that was more that 30 times the actual parking charge for a 24 hour period.

This predatory practice operated by the claimant is an example of a what was referred to by the Communities Secretary Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP on 31 August 2020 as a ‘rogue car parking firm’

When the £100 FCN was not paid, the claimant appointed XXXX Limited on March XX, 2019 to pursue collection of this amount. XXXX adopted aggressive and distressing tactics through issuing a bombardment of letters using pseudo legal language clearly with the objective of intimidating the defendant. These letters threatened legal proceedings and even intimated that the defendants’ creditworthiness and future employability could be affected.

The defendant responded on more than one occasion by telephone call to advise XXXX that they were pursing this claim in error, that the defendant was not the driver, merely the registered keeper and that driver had in fact paid for a 24 hour parking period on the date in question, had a valid VAT receipt and a bank statement to prove the full amount of £4.40 had been paid.

In spite of being in receipt of this information and having also been requested to stop further written or verbal communication, XXXX continued to bombard the defendant with more threatening letters using pseudo legal language – the most recent letter of which is dated December 29, 2020 offering a pre-approved payment plan of £40 per month. At no time has XXXX or the claimant acknowledged that the defendant was not the driver and no contract had been formed between the parties.

KeithP

sdmitch said:

Thanks for your help so far. Just about to file my defence (due tomorrow - late I know!): 

Yes, about a month ago I did say...

KeithP said:

...you have until 4pm on Monday 4th January 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

You need to now hope that someone has time to read it in the next 23 hours.
Good luck.


Who are "XXXX Limited"?

You state that you phoned them several times to point out that "they were pursuing this claim in error".
Did you ever do that in writing? A telephone call is worth the paper it is written on.

Why do you feel the need to mention the drivers relationship to you? When you have won your case, it makes it easier for the Claimant to start a case against the driver.

Coupon-mad

The defendant first became aware of the alleged contractual breach when he received a letter from the claimant that the claimant claims was sent on February 12th 2019. The claimant claimed that the contractual breach was a Failure to clearly display a valid ticket/permit and an amount of £100 was outstanding. The claimant did not comply...

Too many 'claim' and 'contractual' - try saying it out loud!  Remove half of the repetition.

sdmitch

Thanks Keith. XXX Limited is BW Legal. No I never followed up calls in writing - maybe best to omit this comment?. Thanks for the comment on identifying the driver.
Will file right away after editing.

Umkomaas

Why are you throwing your daughter under the bus?  The PPC needs to prove who was driving. You don't do their work for them. 

The claimant did not comply with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

Are you confident in that assertion?  Do you have a sufficient 'grip' on PoFA to (eventually) explain/argue their non-compliance in front of a Judge?

sdmitch

Thanks again for input - daughter now removed from under the bus!
In terms of PoFA - I've lifted that from the defence template so I'd be first to acknowledge only limited knowledge - however I've been disciplined with retaining letters received and I have not received any NTK letter. PPC has not yet responded to SAR - which is due in the next 7 days.