Letter of claim

Redx

In a nutshell 😁.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

KSKnight

Coupon-Mad, thank you, that is very helpful. 
I know it was a stupid thing to pay but I was unaware like a lot of people of parking tickets being a scam hence why I paid up. I only saw the forum threads and advice via a google search when I needed help with the subsequent letters. 
The full tariff is £80, reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days discount period.
Initially in 2017 all the letters chasing payment were for two PCNs. Subsequently they have only been referring to one of the PCNs. I have only received one LBC for one PCN.
I should have been clear when referring to "I". I understand if my dad has to deal with it, everything goes via him.

Can I also point out that the letter of claim states the PCN was issued on 23/01/2017. I have email confirmation of payment made on 08/02/2017 (Day 17 from PCN issue). The letter of claim states Basis of Claim....pursuant to the contract, payment of the PCN was due within 28 days of issue, yet it currently remains outstanding. (I am assuming they are referring to the full tariff of £80 not being paid within 28 days?)
I will do as coupon-mad has suggested and update soon.

Coupon-mad

I am assuming they are referring to the full tariff of £80 not being paid within 28 days?

Yes, we assume so.  They are clueless - seemingly they haven't noticed £40 was paid - so send the reply I suggested.

KSKnight

so they finally emailed back after checking with CP Parking.
"Having reviewed this matter further with our Client, they have acknowledged that a payment of £40.00 was received towards the balance however, this was not made within the 14 day timeframe provided by them. As such, the payment that was required at the time to conclude the matter was £80.00. Please note that we have amended our records to reflect the £40.00 payment made to our Client and the outstanding balance now stands at £110.00.

We note that in your initial correspondence to our office that you state you were not the driver on the day the parking charge was issued. In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our Client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our Client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated.

You are now invited to nominate a driver within 14 days of the date of this email. You would need to provide their full name and a serviceable address. If no nomination is received, we will continue to pursue based on the above statement."

My Dad will now declare me as the driver.

Redx

So they have inflated the outstanding balance of £40 by a further £70 debt collector fee

Coupon-mad

My Dad will now declare me as the driver.

Why?  He wins the case...or is this one where he isn't up to it?

D_P_Dance

So they have inflated the outstanding balance of £40 by a further £70 debt collector fee

Obviously they think tat Excel v Wilkinson does not apply to them. 

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''.

KSKnight

Coupon-mad said:

My Dad will now declare me as the driver.

Why?  He wins the case...or is this one where he isn't up to it?

He wont be up to it, especially if it means him having to go to court. Would you suggest he continues to take on the case? Would it make any difference if he names me? (in terms of affecting the outcome?)

D_P_Dance

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/taking-legal-action-s/using-a-lay-representative-in-civil-legal-action-s/

https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/mckenzie-friends/

and much much more on google

Coupon-mad

These hearings are carried out by phone these days anyway, since COVID, and that's likely to continue.

Would it make any difference if he names me? (in terms of affecting the outcome?)

Yes because he has 100% win due to the POFA and the fact he has told them he wasn't driving (I think?).  He should reiterate that fact yet again now but unless he is really vulnerable, I wouldn't (if it were me and my family) name the driver.

A named driver doesn't have the POFA defence and has to rely on ''the signs weren't clear enough'' or similar.  Which is all subjective and down to the lottery of getting a good Judge who sees your case.