'Notice to Keeper' out of time

Dan222

Please, seeking legal clarification on NTK received. This matter has escalated to Civil Court where Parking Company confirms within their Claim an alleged Contravention Date of 'x' & their subsequent issue of NTK as 8 weeks later !!!! Where, in Law, can I state in Defence that the issue of their NTK was out of time, please ??  Thanks

Fruitcake

It depends on what you mean by, "out of time." If you mean, too late to hold the vehicle keeper liable, then Schedule 4of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies. However, it the driver's identity has been revealed to the PPC, then the dates are irrelevant.

Which PPC? Did you appeal the NTK?

What happened when you complained to the landowner and your MP? That is always Plan A, and it is never too late to do so.

What stage within the court process have you reached? You mention a claim. If you have received a claim from the CNBC, have you completed the AoS and submitted a defence, or are you still at the Letter of/before Claim stage?
If you have received a claim, what do the particulars of claim say?

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

Fruitcake

Since this appears to be a residential case, then it would be better not to give out your address. 

I think their mention of using a barrister is nothing more than a veiled attempt at intimidation since they are no different to you or me.
I expect they still need to eat, drink, and take a dump like everyone else, so don't fret on that score.

It won't hurt tell us the name of the PPC, but it looks like it might have the letters p and m and c in them, or one of the companies that excels at issuing court claims to residents.

It would be useful to know what you put in your defence, and what the PoC specifically say. What does your lease/AST/property rental/ownership say about parking, permits, unregulated private parking companies, PCN, paying them, and court?
What it doesn't say is just as important.
If you are a leaseholder, did the landowner/management company make an application to all landlords and leaseholders to vary leases as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV section 37? 
If they did, did the result comply with the requirements of the above Act.

Coupon-mad

Dan222 said:

Please, seeking legal clarification on NTK received. This matter has escalated to Civil Court where Parking Company confirms within their Claim an alleged Contravention Date of 'x' & their subsequent issue of NTK as 8 weeks later !!!! Where, in Law, can I state in Defence that the issue of their NTK was out of time, please ??  Thanks

Are you defending a claim?

Have you already defended it?

What's the Date of Issue of this Claim?

Le_Kirk

This thread does not scan; has a post been deleted?

Fruitcake

Yes, a post has been deleted, although I'm not sure why. From memory there was nothing untoward posted in between my two posts.
The OP has sent me a PM, so I know which PPC is involved, (it's one of the usual suspects found at residential sites), but obviously can't post what they have sent me.
I've advised them what to post and how, so hopefully we will have more info later, which should answer C-m's questions.

Dan222

PoC & Defence to this Claim shall be posted very shortly - apologies or any delay here. The 'Out of Time' originally queried here relates to information belatedly given by Claimant of their alleged PCN/NtK issues. One NtK, then another, same date, different content & number.

Debszzzz2

Two threads on the same issue from the same OP. Highly confusing. Maybe a mod can merge the two and create even more complex thread readability.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6510617/pcn-ntk-switched-by-parking-company-before-court#latest

Dan222

PoC
"This Claim is for £320 for 2 unpaid Parking Charges due from the Defendant following contractual breaches which occurred between 23/09/2022 and 26/09/2022 on private land operated and managed by the Claimant by the driver of vehicle registration XXXX XXX. The terms & conditions displayed at the private car park, which was lawfully occupied by the Claimant, offered the driver a Contractual Licence. The Terms and Conditions were accepted by the driver and subsequently breached on each occasion. Despite demands, the parking charges remain unpaid. The Claim also includes £140 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in the ATA AOS Code of Practice." 

KeithP

Dan222 said:

PoC
"This Claim is for £320 for 2 unpaid Parking Charges due from the Defendant following contractual breaches which occurred between 23/09/2022 and 26/09/2022 on private land operated and managed by the Claimant by the driver of vehicle registration XXXX XXX. The terms & conditions displayed at the private car park, which was lawfully occupied by the Claimant, offered the driver a Contractual Licence. The Terms and Conditions were accepted by the driver and subsequently breached on each occasion. Despite demands, the parking charges remain unpaid. The Claim also includes £140 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in the ATA AOS Code of Practice." 

This is yet another Claim where the Claimant has failed to state what the Defendant is alleged to have done wrong.

Who is the Claimant? Is there a solicitor working on their behalf? If so, who?

There are a lot of unanswered questions on this thread.
OP, are you looking for help or not?

Dan222

DEFENCE (to 'No Permit Displayed')

1.    This Claim is without Cause of Action & the Defendant does respectfully request that said Claim be struck off from the Court records.

2.    The Defendant is not liable to pay any charges to the Claimant as the Defendant had at all times a valid Resident’s Parking Permit displayed within his vehicle, stuck to the upper right hand windscreen, as per all previous permits similarly. (Encl’s 2 & 3). Said valid Permit was renewed at an annual cost of £100,confirmed paid to xxxxxx  xxxxxx  xxxxx, by cheque from the Defendant, xx xxx 2022. Ref  xxxxx Expiry xx/xx/2023  As such, between 23rd September 2022 & 26th September 2022, no Contractual breach by the Defendant occurred, as is alleged by the Claimant.

3    The Defendant has at no time parked his vehicle in any ‘No Parking’ area at this site, his home area. In fact, the Defendant has regularly parked his car in exactly the same location (as is defined on Resident’s Permit)- adjacent to his garage – consistently so throughout the past 6 years.

4    The Claimant is unreasonable 

5.    The Claimant issued multiple ‘Letter to Keeper’ notices & payment demands, as well as pursuing unnecessary multiple Court Claims from the Defendant, in spite of the Defendant’s responses & proofs. 

6.    The Defendant wrote to the Claimant (& Debt Collections’ Agents) more than 15 times enclosing copy of the relevant valid Resident’s Parking Permit. The Claimant simply ignored the Defendant’s correspondence.

7.    Throughout all demands for payments, within prior correspondence from all of the Claimant’s Debt Collections’ companies with which the Defendant has found it necessary to communicate in this matter for in excess of one year, to date, the Claimant/Claimant’s Agents - xxxx have referred to 2 alien/incorrectly-referenced PCN’s : xxxxxxx & xxxxxxx -(Claimant basis within Particulars of Claim .(Encl. #4 Schedule)  Accordingly, the Defendant has repeatedly confirmed to the Claimant that, for given dates of alleged contravention, the Defendant has no known knowledge or receipt of PCN, else ‘Letter to Keeper’ bearing such given references as: xxxxxxx & xxxxxxx. All such correspondence from the Defendant has been ignored by the Claimant.. (Encl. #5)

8.    (Temp. withheld)

>>>   End of Defence    <<<