14 Weeks Before NTK Issued

Alleged

Thank you for all who have put so much work into this section of the Forum.
I have read a lot of it & would like my points 2 & 3 to be considered/altered/improved as necessary.
I have left the other points from the template in their original form although I am not sure I should be leaving the reference to signs in for an unknown driver situation.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not known who the driver on the date in question was.

3.  The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 which allows 14 days to provide the notice.

The Defendant was first made aware of the situation over 100 days after the event had occurred.  The Notice To Keeper, sent to the Defendant as Registered Keeper, is dated as issued on 04/09/2020. The date of event is recorded as 27/05/2020; a difference of more than 14 WEEKS.

Due to the long delay between the event occurring & the Notice to Keeper being provided the defendant was denied a reasonable chance to know from memory who the driver was.

The defendant attempted to stop this claim at an early stage by using the Appeal procedure but was denied the possibility of completing that through the failure of the system the Claimant provided for the purpose of appeal. This possibly occurred due to the large time-frame between the event happening & the appeal being made.

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs require a number.  If you are concerned about leaving the signage points in, you could add a leader stating that, after receipt of the PCN (late) you went, as keeper, to carry out research and discovered .............

KeithP

You seem to be creating a Defence.

You haven't mentioned it, but have you received a County Court Claim Form?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Alleged

Yes, the defendant has received a County Court Claim Form ( I am posting on their behalf & assisting with the defence as much as possible).
The issue date of the above is 29 Sep 2021.
The defendant has been online & issued an AOS.

Alleged

Updated wording/formatting as advised so far:

2.         It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not known who the driver on the date in question was.

3.         The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 which allows 14 days to provide the notice.

4.         The Defendant was first made aware of the situation over 100 days after the event had occurred.  The Notice To Keeper, sent to the Defendant as Registered Keeper, is dated as issued on 04/09/2020. The date of event is recorded as 27/05/2020; a difference of more than 14 WEEKS.

5.         Due to the long delay between the event & notice being provided the defendant was denied a reasonable chance to know from memory who the driver was.

6.         The defendant attempted to stop this claim at an early stage by using the Appeal procedure but was denied the possibility of completing that through the failure of the system the Claimant was providing. This possibly occurred due to the large timeframe between the event & the appeal being made
...........

16.       After receipt of the PCN (late) the Defendant went, as keeper, to carry out research and discovered 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.

KeithP

Alleged said:

Yes, the defendant has received a County Court Claim Form ( I am posting on their behalf & assisting with the defence as much as possible).
The issue date of the above is 29 Sep 2021.
The defendant has been online & issued an AOS.

For the moment I am going to assume that an Acknowledgment of Service was filed sometime after 1st October and before 19th October (yesterday). Please confirm. The MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st November 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Of course everywhere I have written 'you' or your' I mean the named Defendant.

Alleged

Thank you KeithP.
You are correct in your assumption. The acknowledgment of service was submitted on 11/10/2021.
I will ensure the defendant sends the defence by email as described.
I hope to finalise it myself as a .pdf & leave them to simply email it. I will make sure it is signed before I create the .pdf file.
I will make sure the deadline is met.

Alleged

Finally got hold of images of the current car park signs. Can someone please advise if they fit in with the template defence?

D_P_Dance

That sign is horrendous.  How long would it take to read all od that I wonder, read this and complain to your MP.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Alleged

It seems to me there may be a further defence regarding the 'jurisdiction' confusion due to the different signs.
The vehicle photographs are of the car approaching the yellow box junction which is beyond the G24 sign, but the G24 sign seems to rely on the Excel payment meter(s) for payment.

Redx

Seems to me it must be a split site , using 2 different parking companies , one for each section

They won't be collaborating !