Very late (4 years) arrival of PCN for hired vehicle

Le_Kirk

This is now the subject of action, so PAP for debt claims will not work, hence why they have refused to put it on hold.
ETA posted before I saw that there were three pages to this thread!

Againstallfrauds

nosferatu1001 said:

Indeed, I dont know why you are struggling
.....
The newbeis thread gives a workflow for you to follow. A SAR is useful regardless, because it gives you documents you dont have. 
....

I am probably dyslexic, or autistic or both plus English is not my first language. But let me explain my difficulties.
I am still within the 28 days since the Claim form was served - tick

I now go on to the defence form seen here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 - tick

Here goes with my difficulties:

1. Do I admit I am the driver? I know that I have hired a vehicle but do not know if the vehicle in question mentioned in the claim is the one I was given on the day. I requested this information now by the hiring company.

2. The information I requested may be given up to 4 weeks from the date of request which exceeds my 28 days deadline of sending my defence (probably have 2 weeks left to send the defence). The information will therefore probably arrive later.

3. I will therefore not know if I was indeed the driver by the day I have to file in my defence.

4. I now have 2 choices:
Choise a) do not admit I was the driver claiming I need more information. My unknowns is what happens in such case or,
Choise b) admit I am the driver in which case I proceed with the defence and modify the template:

If you are admitting to driving, you will be talking about what the Defendant saw or didn’t see, in terms of the signs, whether it was dark, whether the signs were obscured by a tree, really small, broken or not lit? etc. Or maybe the signs about inputting your VRM were not conspicuous, or maybe this was a fluttering ticket situation, or maybe the machine made an error in your VRM (never assume the driver made a typo, unless clearly the driver, say, input their other car VRM or something).

5. If I admit I was the driver I cannot adapt the above advised as have no knowldege of the circumstances of the day, since the PCN is from Febr 2016 and I have no recollection of any events. The first Notice of debt recovery I received was from 01 May 2020; 4 plus year later.

6. Is it acceptable to then admit that I have no recollection and have requested by SAR all the data related to the PCN and request a delay in hearing from the court?

I noted that the rest of the template is pretty standard and applicable to all cases.

I hope I have made myself understood as to why I feel stuck. It is perhaps my autism or even stupidity that hinders me.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Redx

1) only if you are 100% sure hat you were the driver , if no recollection of the long ago event , then no , stick to hirer keeper only

2) yes it probably will arrive later , no Biggie

3) correct , so your defence will say so

4) use hirer keeper , no recollection of being the driver , could have been somebody else

5) no recollection is no recollection , so again , say so

6) yes to no recollection , no to any delay , you have zero chance of a delay , you have a 33 day deadline if the AOS was done correctly , or less if not

Your defence deadline is 02 February 2021 , that's fixed , no changes , finito

Any court date will be this summer , or later , the CCBC is an office , not a court

Coupon-mad

You DO NOT need to wait for the SAR, this is so easy to write even when someone doesn't know much about it.  You just say so!!

I'd be saying as an extra line or two, to #2 of your defence, that:

The Defendant does not recognise the numberplate in the Particulars of Claim and has seen no evidence as to who was driving that vehicle or what occurred.  The Defendant is having to guess, due to the sparse particulars, that this may be a hired vehicle but even if it was connected in some way to the Defendant (which is impossible at this stage to admit or deny) a parking firm must first comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') paragraphs 13 and 14 in order to transfer liability to a purported hirer/lessee.  The Defendant denies that this Claimant complied with the POFA - whatever the circumstances or alleged connection to the Defendant - and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their cause of action and allegation of either keeper, driver or hirer liability for a parking charge.  No Notice to Driver nor Keeper, nor Hirer (see POFA definitions) has been served, to the Defendant's certain knowledge.  Further, the Defendant has no knowledge of the circumstances of the day, since the allegation appears to relate to February 2016 and the first letter received was from a third party - a well-known harassing and unregulated 'debt recovery' firm - in May 2020, more than four years after the event.  

Againstallfrauds

Coupon-mad said:

You DO NOT need to wait for the SAR, this is so easy to write even when someone doesn't know much about it.  You just say so!!

...

Thank you Coupon-mad and all. I cannot thank you enough for your help. I will update you with my defence although the roadmap has been pretty much made clear for me now.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, if you can't admit or deny, you state so - and explain. 

Againstallfrauds

Hello all,

I prepared the defence but unfortunately I cannot uplaod a draft (maybe because I am not not using Microsoft or Adobe products). So I will describe what I have done below.

It starts as advised

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 not admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and as such liability is denied.

The Defendant has no knowledge of the circumstances of the day, since the allegation appears to relate to February 2016 and the first letter received was from a third party - a well-known harassing and unregulated 'debt recovery' firm - in May 2020, more than four years after the event.  

3. The Defendant does not recognise the numberplate in the Particulars of Claim and has seen no evidence as to who was driving that vehicle or what occurred. The Defendant is having to guess, due to the sparse particulars, that this may be a hired vehicle but even if it was connected in some way to the Defendant (which is impossible at this stage to admit or deny) a parking firm must first comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') paragraphs 13 and 14 in order to transfer liability to a purported hirer/lessee. The Defendant denies that this Claimant complied with the POFA - whatever the circumstances or alleged connection to the Defendant - and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their cause of action and allegation of either keeper, driver or hirer liability for a parking charge. No Notice to Driver nor Keeper, nor Hirer (see POFA definitions) has been served, to the Defendant's certain knowledge.

I then:

Deleted the NB in para 4
Deleted the entire para 13 as to me it reads like it refers to someone who admits they were the driver and is aware of the circumstances

What do you think? Is it ready to go?

Coupon-mad

As the Claimant is CP PLUS and this was a hire car (you think, because the VRM is unfamiliar?) then change #2 and expand all this to 2, 3, 4, 5:

2. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and as such liability is denied.  The Defendant has no knowledge of the circumstances of the day, since the allegation appears to relate to February 2016 and the first letter received was from a third party - a well-known harassing and unregulated 'debt recovery' firm - in May 2020, more than four years after the alleged date of event.  

3. The numberplate is unfamiliar, so whilst it is possible this may have been a car hired by the Defendant during that year - and the family did visit a Travelodge more than once in recent years - the Claimant is put to strict proof of the connection to the Defendant.  The Travelodge has been contacted by the Defendant in an effort to narrow the issues that the Claimant’s sparse particulars have omitted to cover.  Apparently, parking was and is free for patrons of this Travelodge, thus no guest would have voluntarily agreed to pay £100 to an unknown third party for parking which was already granted by the Hotel without caveat or fee.  

4. Therefore, even if this is later identified as a car hired by the Defendant’s family, it can be concluded that the Claimant’s system failed to properly identify exempt cars, as has reportedly occurred regularly at sites where there is a hidden 'parking' keypad that is not drawn to the attention of guests.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a clear and transparent contract and prominent and well advertised keypad mechanism that any patron would have been bound to have seen.

5. Further, this Claimant is known not to use the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4 - the only law that would allow liability to have been transferred to the hirer) so with no hirer liability nor keeper liability to rely upon, they are reduced to having to establish who was driving on the material date.  A hirer is not necessarily the only driver of a car and multiple drivers in the Defendant's family have always shared the driving of hired vehicles at family events and/or when on Hotel breaks.  No evidence has been shown of the identity of the driver, so on the balance of probabilities it was not the Defendant who parked the vehicle.   The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their cause of action and basis for the claim.

Add in para 13 again (altered as below and renumbered because it WON'T now be #13, due to the above added numbers) because ALL defences need to say that the signs were - or were believed to be - inadequate:

17.       The Defendant's research has revealed that the Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed by the driver.  It appears likely that this was an all-too-typical case where a rogue parking firm has negligently or deliberately operated using a hidden keypad inside the premises somewhere, placing the burden on drivers and various Hotel staff to notice it and use it to exempt every guest one by one, among all the other considerations when booking into a Hotel.  It is averred that the alleged contract and consumer notice are both unfair, pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and paying due regard to the well-known 'red hand rule'.

Againstallfrauds

Thank you Coupon-mad. I will send as suggested

Againstallfrauds

Here's my update.

i followed all instructions and timelines so....

Allocation to the clocal small court decided (no date yet). i received initially a letter notifying me to that.

I then received a follow-up letter saying that "The court ordered that unless the claimant sent a reply to the defence which contains full particulars of this claim to the defendant and the court by 4 PM on 9th April 2021 the claim will be automatically struck out"

Six days ago I received the the following request via email from DCB Legal Limited (their legal representative):

"Good Morning,

For Data Protection purposes, kindly confirm your:

Full name

Address

Postcode"

No other explanation was given hence I ignored it.

Today I got a voicemail (missed call) from DCB Legal Limited representing CP Lus Ltd/ TA Group Nexus (the claimant) asking me to call them back.

Now, they have all the above details as I had to respond to the claim and also send a copy to the legal team (which I did).

They have to respond by 4 PM on 9th April 2021 (2 days)

What do they want from me?
Do I need to call them back?
Do I lose the case if I do not contact them?