Parking Fine Address Incorrect

blue_cat_rules99

Hi,

Have followed the advice on these useful pages and have reached stage where am being taken the solicitor is now proceeding to the hearing.  Bit worried.  Am defending the claim as registered keeper and one of my main arguments is that the Notice to Keeper required by paragraph 4 Paragraph 9 (2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)  was defective in its format and that the Notice to Keeper was not served within the time periods set out in paragraph 9 (4) of the PoFA as the address they used was wrong but had the right postcode.  I am aware that this may be an error on my V5 which I will need to correct.  Can I ask for views on this ?  

Thanks

Blue Cat

Boat_to_Bolivia

What is the issue date of your court claim? Have you filed your AoS? If so when?

@KeithP will be along soon with some important dates and information.

Which PPC and which solicitor. What were the circumstances surrounding the issue of the speculative invoice.

Also have you ensured they now have your correct address and told them to erase the old one?

Umkomaas

A marginally incorrect home address does not make a NtK non PoFA compliant and is not a get out of jail card. There are much more potent points of defence, all of which are included in the template included in the Template Defence Announcement. 

@Boat_to_Bolivia's questions above are important - your answers will help move your thread along. 

blue_cat_rules99

PPC is UK Parking Ltd and solicitor is DCB Legal Ltd.

So far have filed defence but used MLoL by mistake as limited to very skeletal arguments. Probably why they have proceeded further. 

Thanks for comments about PoFA. 

Hope you can help.

blue_cat_rules99

Circumstances are that I parked at a shopping area and did not return until 3hrs 20 when limit was 3hrs. Signage was probably ok and clear.

Later correspondence from solicitor has right address so have not asked to amend and erase.

1505grandad

"So far have filed defence but used MLoL by mistake....."

Please post verbatim the Defence.

B789

Hopefully, you put enough into your defence that can be expanded on in your WS. If it is robust enough, have a read of this thread where you will see the predicted outcome of a bottom-dwelling duo claim is expected to be:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

blue_cat_rules99

Defence submitted:
i) defendant denies receiving the Notice to Keeper in
accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) as it was
sent to the wrong address (1 Old Uxbridge Road);
ii) The Notice to Keeper required by paragraph 9 of the PoFA was
defective;
iii) The Notice to Keeper was not served within the time periods
set out in paragraph 9 (4) of the PoFA;
iv) The Claimant has no standing to bring a case;
v.) The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the
Registered Keeper and no contract was formed;
vi). The signage did not offer a genuine contract with the
Registered Keeper;
vii). Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in
breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations;
viii.) The Claimant has no Cause of Action;
vi.) Even if a debt existed, it would be due to the land-owner,
not the Claimant; and
vii). The Claimant has misrepresented its day-to-day business
costs as a loss.

blue_cat_rules99

DCB Legal seem to want people to jump through hoops and offer settlement and then give up. The latest they said they would agree to a settlement figure if I called them. Bandits.

B789

blue_cat_rules99 said:

DCB Legal seem to want people to jump through hoops and offer settlement and then give up. The latest they said they would agree to a settlement figure if I called them. Bandits.

Just the expected next step before they discontinue.

You shouldn't have any problem with that defence but it is a little bare-boned as it is not as comprehensive as the one we recommend, an example of which is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

You should consider preparing a WS just in case.

Coupon-mad

blue_cat_rules99 said:

Defence submitted:
i) defendant denies receiving the Notice to Keeper in
accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) as it was
sent to the wrong address (1 Old Uxbridge Road);
ii) The Notice to Keeper required by paragraph 9 of the PoFA was
defective;
iii) The Notice to Keeper was not served within the time periods
set out in paragraph 9 (4) of the PoFA;
iv) The Claimant has no standing to bring a case;
v.) The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the
Registered Keeper and no contract was formed;
vi). The signage did not offer a genuine contract with the
Registered Keeper;
vii). Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in
breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations;
viii.) The Claimant has no Cause of Action;
vi.) Even if a debt existed, it would be due to the land-owner,
not the Claimant; and
vii). The Claimant has misrepresented its day-to-day business
costs as a loss.

That's really not great I am afraid - but I think you know that now - but the good news is you can also argue unclear signs, due to the CRA 2015 s71.

This is 100% incorrect:

"Signage was probably ok and clear."