Second N1SDT form - more help please

rexmonday

Hey

I’d originally posted here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80434488#Comment_80434488

 …but was advised to start a second thread for the second form.

So here it is, original post is pasted below but edited for ease of use: 

Hey

I would be MOST grateful for some help relating to two separate N1SDT forms I have received in the past two weeks, for two separate parking “offences”

The first relates to 3 separate parking tickets I received years ago, that were issued because my parking permit had run out. I was parked on private land in the car park of my flat, which I rent. The three tickets were issued on three consecutive days while I was away on holiday (you would have thought the one ticket would have been enough).

The second N1SDT form relates to a parking ticket I received for parking in a department store car park. I forgot to purchase a ticket and received the fine a few weeks later.

In both instances I ignored everything that was sent to me; the letters informing me of the fine, the numerous debt collector letters and the fake solicitor letters. I was under the impression that these could not be enforced as these tickets were issued while I was on private land. I’m sure you can imagine my surprise when the county court claims form landed on my door mat.

The section stating a ‘judgement’ may be entered against me, and passed to credit rating agencies, is far from ideal given I’m looking to take out my first mortgage next year.

I guess, my question is, how do I make these go away, forever?

Thank you all in advance for your help

In light of what was said in the first thread, the issue date of the form is 17 November 2023 and the Claimant is NAPIER PARKING LIMITED

I’ll post the Particulars of Claim in the following post

rexmonday

Thank you all, in advance, for your help 

Fruitcake

Use the template defence thread and take note of the advice in para 3 of the template. The claimant's PoC are woefully inadequate, so the CEL v Chan case needs to be referenced, plus the judgment in that case needs to be quoted. All of it.

Show us your draft defence before you submit it.

Hopefully you will now understand why the advice to ignore a PCN has not been given on this forum since the law changed in 2012. You should also understand by now that you have not received a fine.

KeithP

rexmonday said:

...the issue date of the form is 17 November 2023

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th November, you have until Wednesday 6th 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 Wednesday 20th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over 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 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'.

rexmonday

AOS has been submitted, but I've not received email conformation; should I?

Next step... defence!

Thanks all, for your help so far

KeithP

rexmonday said:

AOS has been submitted, but I've not received email conformation; should I?

Next step... defence!

Thanks all, for your help so far

So you have submitted an Acknowledgment of Service of the Claim.
That translates to confirmation that you have received the Claim.

Do you now want an acknowledgment that the CNBC have received your acknowledgment of receipt of the Claim?

If you were to get that, would you then feel duty bound to send an Acknowledgment of Service of their receipt of your Acknowledgment of Service of the Claim?

What happens next??   

rexmonday

Fruitcake said:

Use the template defence thread and take note of the advice in para 3 of the template. The claimant's PoC are woefully inadequate, so the CEL v Chan case needs to be referenced, plus the judgment in that case needs to be quoted. All of it.

Show us your draft defence before you submit it.

Hopefully you will now understand why the advice to ignore a PCN has not been given on this forum since the law changed in 2012. You should also understand by now that you have not received a fine.

Hey

Do I need to quote the CEL vs Chan case, seeing as the POC state that I breached the conditions accepted upon entry?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

No you just use the Template Defence and show us your draft para 3. Respond to the allegation that you were the driver and that you failed to make payment.

rexmonday

Please see my first draft below, with CEL vs Chan removed, as you suggested. The defence seems a little weak at this point, but I'm hoping some guidance will make it stronger. Thank you again for all your help:

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and probable driver of vehicle registration mark XXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that on 16/12/2022 the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at XXXX.

5. The Defendant denies the facts set out by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, as at the time the Defendant believed that parking charges had been paid via the RingGo app.

6. Having recently checked the history of the RingGo app, the Defendant has now become aware that the incorrect location was selected in the app, and that parking charges were paid at a different location.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
7.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages’ as vaguely stated in the template POC.

Coupon-mad

Don't call the statements in the POC 'facts'.

Call them allegations and assumptions.

Remove this random ending from the end of para 2:

"and it is admitted that"

Remove 6 and 7 which are unnecessary and it is incorrect to say there was 'no loss'. The loss was the pound or two paid which the app appears to have caused to be allocated to the wrong car park.

rexmonday

Thank you so much for your reply. I have a couple of further questions if you'd be so kind:

1. Should I also replace the word 'fact' in the below; to my mind they're appropriate in the current context:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. 

2. Why am I removing paragraph 6? Should I not be transparent about my mistake?

3. Should I change paragraph 7 to the following, or just remove completly:

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
7.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages’ as vaguely stated in the template POC.

Many thanks, again!