Excel Parking LBC following PCN after 14 days

westcoast888

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

The issue date is 22nd November. It’s a MCOL 

KeithP

westcoast888 said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

The issue date is 22nd November. It’s a MCOL 

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd November, you have until Monday 12th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 29th December 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

westcoast888

Thank you KeithP, I will get on with it tomorrow 

westcoast888

Acknowledgement of service filed

westcoast888

I've been working on my defence and i'm not sure if i really need to go to town as the template provided by coupon mad seems pretty extensive! 

I've come up with this so far and 've omitted personal details which I will of course add back in when I send it.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The first time the defendant was aware of a parking charge was when a Notice to keeper (NTK) was received at the defendants home address. This letter demanded a charge of £80. The defendant was unaware of having parked somewhere where a parking fee was due. This NTK has an issue and post date of XXXXXX. The alleged ‘contravention date’ on the NTK is XXXXX over 45 days earlier.

The defendant wasn’t sure if in fact this was a scam as he could not remember parking at this address.

At this point the defendant decided to research where in fact this car park was. It was then discovered after talking to family members that the defendant had remembered travelling with family to the town of TOWNXXX. TOWNXXX is approx. 28 miles from the defendants home and the defendant hasn’t travelled there in over 20 years and as such is unfamiliar with the town. The defendant went to TOWNXXX to visit a second hand furniture shop. This shop is located in the XXXXX car park. The defendant did not remember seeing any clear signage on the day that would indicate that a parking fee was to be paid. The defendant thought the car park belonged to the second hand shop. The sales person in the shop didn’t mention anything about a parking charge.

On a subsequent visit to TOWNXXXX to view the car park it was found that there is a sign at either side of the entrance to the car park. The sign on the left of the entrance has small text in English but might only really seen by a pedestrian and not the passenger of the vehicle when entering the car park. The sign to the right hand side of the car park entrance is in Welsh text and as such is unreadable to the defendant as he is not able to speak or read Welsh. This sign is made even more difficult to read as the driver of a vehicle would be entering the car park from a busy road across the pavement. On this subsequent visit the pay and display machine was finally located at the far end of the car park, located pretty much out of view of the motorists entering the carpark. If the car park was full the ticket machine would be obscured by the parked vehicles. The weather on the 4thXXXXX was exceptionally wet with flooding and poor visibility. The defendant feels like the car park operator has made it difficult to inform drivers that a fee is payable for parking. The defendant is always happy to pay for parking and would in no way try to dodge payment.

The defendant sent a letter in response to the NTK detailing that the NTK had been received more than 48 days after the alleged period of parking.

The notice was issued outside the relevant period as defined under POFA 2012 section (5) which states that "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." Therefore the notice to keeper has not been issued correctly and you will not be able to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. The keeper is under no obligation to provide any driver details or accept liability for the notice.

The defendant has received further correspondence demanding payment and threatening court action with added costs. The Claimant has added further ‘costs’ to the total which seems unfair. The defendant has asked the Claimant for information on a number of occasions (SAR) but the full information requested has not been forthcoming. Information such as the signed contract with the landowner and a PDT machine record from the day (XX2/XX/XX) of payments made didn’t materialise.

Do i need to mention every letter back and forth including the templated ones from the parking company?


Am I on the right track?

Mouse007

westcoast888 said:

Am I on the right track?

No. That reads more like a Witness Statement which comes much later. You certainly do not need to go to town. Short to the point defence points.

I think you need to choose what defence you are going for, Registered Keeper (No Liability under PoFA), Driver did not see signs etc or Defendant did not see signs.

I am not clear what you received when, your first post talks about PCN's but this draft defence talks about NTK.

Google Street View here for others, if you approached the car park from the left it would be very easy to miss those entrance signs. Edit to add: Unfortunately that looks like a one way street and the view from the right is a bit unhelpfull. Edit to further add: However if you change the date back to Nov 2021 the street view is very helpful indeed.

Coupon-mad

Yes you are but every paragraph of course needs a number, and delete &  save all this for the WS, later:

"On a subsequent visit to TOWNXXXX to view the car park it was found that there is a sign at either side of the entrance to the car park. The sign on the left of the entrance has small text in English but might only really seen by a pedestrian and not the passenger of the vehicle when entering the car park. The sign to the right hand side of the car park entrance is in Welsh text and as such is unreadable to the defendant as he is not able to speak or read Welsh. This sign is made even more difficult to read as the driver of a vehicle would be entering the car park from a busy road across the pavement. On this subsequent visit the pay and display machine was finally located at the far end of the car park, located pretty much out of view of the motorists entering the carpark. If the car park was full the ticket machine would be obscured by the parked vehicles. The weather on the 4thXXXXX was exceptionally wet with flooding and poor visibility. The defendant feels like the car park operator has made it difficult to inform drivers that a fee is payable for parking. The defendant is always happy to pay for parking and would in no way try to dodge payment.

The defendant sent a letter in response to the NTK detailing that the NTK had been received more than 48 days after the alleged period of parking.

The notice was issued outside the relevant period as defined under POFA 2012 section (5) which states that "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." Therefore the notice to keeper has not been issued correctly and you will not be able to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. The keeper is under no obligation to provide any driver details or accept liability for the notice.

The defendant has received further correspondence demanding payment and threatening court action with added costs. The Claimant has added further ‘costs’ to the total which seems unfair. The defendant has asked the Claimant for information on a number of occasions (SAR) but the full information requested has not been forthcoming. Information such as the signed contract with the landowner and a PDT machine record from the day (XX2/XX/XX) of payments made didn’t materialise."

westcoast888

Mouse007 said:

westcoast888 said:

Am I on the right track?

No. That reads more like a Witness Statement which comes much later. You certainly do not need to go to town. Short to the point defence points.

I think you need to choose what defence you are going for, Registered Keeper (No Liability under PoFA), Driver did not see signs etc or Defendant did not see signs.

I am not clear what you received when, your first post talks about PCN's but this draft defence talks about NTK.

Google Street View here for others, if you approached the car park from the left it would be very easy to miss those entrance signs. Edit to add: Unfortunately that looks like a one way street and the view from the right is a bit unhelpfull. Edit to further add: However if you change the date back to Nov 2021 the street view is very helpful indeed.

thanks for your reply. 
The first correspondance was a NTC and a PCN all in one. second one was a PCN. then demand for payment, then final demand. Finally a letter before claim before the court claim slid through the door.
i thought that the parking company had to send fine within 14 days, which they didnt so i sent a letter to tell them it was in fact over 45 days.
 Letters have gone back and forwards, i didn't give driver details but i am being taken to court for non payment of a £80 fine that has increased to £150 and now £235. i sent a SAR request.

westcoast888

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you are but every paragraph of course needs a number, and delete &  save all this for the WS, later:

"On a subsequent visit to TOWNXXXX to view the car park it was found that there is a sign at either side of the entrance to the car park. The sign on the left of the entrance has small text in English but might only really seen by a pedestrian and not the passenger of the vehicle when entering the car park. The sign to the right hand side of the car park entrance is in Welsh text and as such is unreadable to the defendant as he is not able to speak or read Welsh. This sign is made even more difficult to read as the driver of a vehicle would be entering the car park from a busy road across the pavement. On this subsequent visit the pay and display machine was finally located at the far end of the car park, located pretty much out of view of the motorists entering the carpark. If the car park was full the ticket machine would be obscured by the parked vehicles. The weather on the 4thXXXXX was exceptionally wet with flooding and poor visibility. The defendant feels like the car park operator has made it difficult to inform drivers that a fee is payable for parking. The defendant is always happy to pay for parking and would in no way try to dodge payment.

The defendant sent a letter in response to the NTK detailing that the NTK had been received more than 48 days after the alleged period of parking.

The notice was issued outside the relevant period as defined under POFA 2012 section (5) which states that "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." Therefore the notice to keeper has not been issued correctly and you will not be able to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. The keeper is under no obligation to provide any driver details or accept liability for the notice.

The defendant has received further correspondence demanding payment and threatening court action with added costs. The Claimant has added further ‘costs’ to the total which seems unfair. The defendant has asked the Claimant for information on a number of occasions (SAR) but the full information requested has not been forthcoming. Information such as the signed contract with the landowner and a PDT machine record from the day (XX2/XX/XX) of payments made didn’t materialise."

Thanks Coupon mad

So to be clear just this would be fine

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The first time the defendant was aware of a parking charge was when a Notice to keeper (NTK) was received at the defendants home address. This letter demanded a charge of £80. The defendant was unaware of having parked somewhere where a parking fee was due. This NTK has an issue and post date of XXXXXX. The alleged ‘contravention date’ on the NTK is XXXXX over 45 days earlier. The defendant wasn’t sure if in fact this was a scam as he could not remember parking at this address. At this point the defendant decided to research where in fact this car park was. It was then discovered after talking to family members that the defendant had remembered travelling with family to the town of TOWNXXX. TOWNXXX is approx. 28 miles from the defendants home and the defendant hasn’t travelled there in over 20 years and as such is unfamiliar with the town. The defendant went to TOWNXXX to visit a second hand furniture shop. This shop is located in the XXXXX car park. The defendant did not remember seeing any clear signage on the day that would indicate that a parking fee was to be paid. The defendant thought the car park belonged to the second hand shop. The sales person in the shop didn’t mention anything about a parking charge.

Mouse007

westcoast888 said:

This NTK has an issue and post date of XXXXXX. The alleged ‘contravention date’ on the NTK is XXXXX over 45 days earlier.

This suggest to me that you are thinking they sent the NTK too late after the event to hold the keeper liable.

But here you admit to being the driver.

westcoast888 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

What is your defence point flowing from these dates?

I don't think you need this bit "At this point the defendant decided to research where in fact this car park was. It was then discovered after talking to family members that the defendant had remembered travelling with family to the town of TOWNXXX. TOWNXXX is approx. 28 miles from the defendants home and the defendant hasn’t travelled there in over 20 years and as such is unfamiliar with the town."