5 years and 3 months after the alleged PCN - recieved a claim form

Mouse007

nanana13 said:

 how do i proceed?

You continue to Defend, proceedings have started and liability can not at this stage be transferred to the driver.

Mouse007

nanana13 said:

3c). The Defendant has not owned the aforementioned vehicle since 2018 and has since moved to a new address. The Defendant first heard of the alleged contravention upon receiving the first of a series of harassing 'debt recovery' letters to the Defendant's new address in January 2021, threatening to make a television spectacle of the Defendant. This was nearly 5 years after the alleged contravention. The letters appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored this threatening “Debt Collection” type letter believing it could be part of a scam.

3d).The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

3e). 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).

3f). Following on from [3d] and [3e], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in 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'. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have issued a compliant notice to keeper.

3c is not a Defence point, bin it.3d, the second sentance repeats the first and the last sentance adds too much at this stage (Witness Statement later maybe).

Perhaps start with a new a paragraph that the driver was an ex, the first you knew about it was, came as a complete shock.

Coupon-mad

It's too late for the driver to be named.

patient_dream

nanana13 said:

last one  , this one is suppose to be the sign

The sign is typical UKPC rubbish
It offers NO proof because it's unreadable.  This is such a poor quality picture that even a judge could not read it 

DCBL SAY ...
"The Contract entitles C to damages AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160"

Where did DCBL get that little wheeze from ?  We know it's just a fake add-on for them.  In 2017 the UKPC signs never mentioned DAMAGES. The sign below is 2020 and does not mention DAMAGES so all signs prior to this, 2017, will not mention damages.

DCBL already say that "The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C" ?    UKPC will not own the land and as they are an agent employed to manage the car park only, they are not entitled to damages.

The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C" ....
Leyton Mill Retail Park would be the one who damages could be owed and that would be minimal if ever.
BUT ... DCBL are only acting for UKPC and not Leyton Mill Retail Park

This is a copy and paste DCBL Robo claim, we see all the time.  
THE CLUE IS ...... The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C" <<< DON'T DCBL KNOW ???

The problem for DCBL is they have now signed a statement of truth to the court ??? not good for them

Given the picture below taken in 2020, NO DAMAGES SHOWN, unless UKPC are time travellers and earlier signs DID show damages, one would imagine a court judge has only one option, spank DCBL and dismiss the case and award you costs
DCBL DO CLAIM THAT THE 2017 SIGN IS A CONTRACT AFTER ALL

The infamous DCBL discontinue rubbish UKPC claims but you have to play this stupid game with them.  Follow what forum members say, DCBL will take it to the wire just to get you to pay which you will not.

And, in case you wonder .... NO CCJ ... NO BAILIFFS

PICTURE TAKEN 2020 .... BINCOCULARS REQUIRED

nanana13

just a ccj judgemnt today against me, even though i had another week to anwer.  I had acknowleged the damn thing but it seems it did not go thorugh .. i am guessing.

wt the heck do i do now????????????????????????????????????

i dont have the money .. and to say a CCJ against my name ..the worst time ..

Umkomaas

nanana13 said:

just a ccj judgemnt today against me, even though i had another week to anwer.  I had acknowleged the damn thing but it seems it did not go thorugh .. i am guessing.

wt the heck do i do now????????????????????????????????????

i dont have the money .. and to say a CCJ against my name ..the worst time .. 

By what method did you acknowledge the claim with the CCBC?  Any confirmation from them that they'd received your AOS?  Check you MCOL history which might give some clue. 

PS - do you have a problem with a sticking question mark button?

nanana13

i just did ..my acknowlegement is there but so is the ccj ???

I thought wth me acknowledging which  was on 23d i had 28 dayds from 11th jan (+5)

11 jan+5+28= 13 feb ?????

Coupon-mad

Please copy and paste here, your MCOL History including dates.

nanana13

the acknowledgment was done on moneyclaim

it acutally said to acknowledge to have 28 days.. not 14 .. there was no where to ask for 28 days.

Also the amount on the letter is dfiferent frorm the amount on the judgment???

Coupon-mad

Please show us exactly what I asked for.  The whole history. All dates (obviously not any personal data in the header)