PCN Claim from 2020
Mrscompliant
Forumite 
I have receive a county claim on 10 January from Highview parking relating to 4 PCNs as stated in the claim form.
I have sent a SAR to DPO nexus (17 January), and cpr request to the solicitors.
*Yet to receive a reply from them
I have acknowledged service on 16 January
This is my first draft of my defence, please critique
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal Limited acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £9xx.xx (inclusive of £70 Court Fee & £70 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to four PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-xx nearly 2 years ago on xx, xx, xx and xx January 2020 at xxxxxx RETAIL PARK.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant is unable to recall who was or was not driving on random days nearly 2 years ago.
4. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.
5. Following on from [4] where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their Particulars of Claim (POC) which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, same as any Group Nexus company, have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition. Not only does the Particulars of Claim (POC) include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims. So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £7xx.xx. The Defendant has excluded the £70 Court Fee & £70 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.
6. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).
Replies
You have told us the date when you received the Claim.
Can you now please tell us the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?
Sorry i mixed up the issue date and the date i received the letter
That's just a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.
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'.
"it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute".
Is that good enough for a defence to submit, or could it use some improvements.
Shall i also wait for my SAR to come through or submit my defence once finalised?
Do not wait for the SAR reply to arrive
..... and change #5 to the correct number after you have renumbered your whole defence.
Thanks to @1505grandad who was the first to point this out.
fixed
which paragraph would be best suited to put this in?
As for the;
Second draft
2. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal Limited acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £9xx.xx (inclusive of £70 Court Fee & £70 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to four PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx over 2 years ago on xx, xx, xx and xx January 2020 at xxxx RETAIL PARK.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant is unable to recall who was or was not driving on random days over 2 years ago.
4. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.
5. Following on from [4] where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, same as any Group Nexus company, have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition. Not only does the Particulars of Claim (POC) include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims. So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £768.60. The Defendant has excluded the £70 Court Fee & £70 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.
6. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).
Posted my full defence in this pastebin/T2QwXVJg with hopefully no errors
*cant post links