Claim Form received for a private ticket

nosferatu1001

We know that, but that is covered by the DOUBLE RECOVERY argument in the Template Defence
For POFA you need to compare the ORIGINAL NTK - NOT any reminders! - to the applicable part of schedule 4  - para 8 OR para 9. Never both. 
What do they allege happen? We know NOTHING as tot he background yet - surely you recognise either of the locations youve given? We certainly wont have any clue...

Johnersh

This site has featured before

Re: One Parking Solution - Notice to Keeper / PCN

The postcode referred to on the claim form no longer exists, I believe. 

Coupon-mad

This has cropped up before and it's the residential car park next to a Co-op.  

But it isn't Plough Lane so the location is wrong, you can (in the defence facts) deny that the Defendant or any driver of this car has parked in a car park at the location given in the Particulars: Plough Lane. 

The landowner contract has also been picked apart on here before,  you only had to search to find this place and OPS discussed.  The contract hasn't even got a name on the agreement, "This agreement is between ......... and OPS."

Here's the contract:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6146428/one-parking-solution-notice-to-keeper-pcn/p6

It is where Wimbledon Football Club used to be.  Easy to look at on GoogleStreetView.  Have to say I have no idea why people think it's OK to park at private flats to use that Co-op, which is probably what the driver did, having driven past a sign and walked past another.

D_P_Dance

but they have put £160

Indeed, 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''.

superman19

thank you guys for all your input, i am unsure about one thing. the vehicle is registered on my mums company. can i defend this claim on her behalf.
i have found the ntk.

Coupon-mad

No, the company defends it in the company name.

KeithP

And the good thing is that the Registered Keeper, i.e. the company, could not have been the driver.

nosferatu1001

The named defendant defends. No one else

howevrr obviously you can help write the defence, do research etc.