Parking ticket issued to old address

Gr1pr

Please post the issue date, plus the AOS date as well, plus a redacted picture of the POC on the bottom left of the claim form, after hiding the VRM details first 

boraborabunny

The AOS date was 25/11/24

See attachments for other info: 

Johnersh

The defence denies driving, fair enough. However, it appears not to contain a defence to pofa liability as keeper. It should put C to proof as to the terms, that the signage was clear to all motorists and as to the basis upon which they seek to claim from a keeper more than the amounts permitted by the legislative regime.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th December 2024 to file a 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Coupon-mad

boraborabunny said:

After receiving the Claim Form, I have already sent my AOS via.

I'm now working on my defence to add to the template. My additions are below in italics. I've just added to P.2 that I was not driving the car and P.3 the particulars. There's not much defence that I can add as I wasn't there - I don't want to overcomplicate things, but please let me know your thoughts.

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 the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Defendant was not driving the vehicle.

 

3. The Defendant received a letter from dcbl on 13/06/24 for an alleged parking breach and alleged unpaid parking charge from 06/04/24. This was the first contact the Defendant had from dcbl and the ‘debt fees’ were already highly inflated.

The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and was out of the country when the alleged ‘contravention’ happened, and therefore should not be pursued for a breach of the terms on the signs: no valid parking session, as laid out in the particulars of claim.

The PPC is Parkmaven who I think use the POFA (but you already know that from reading the Newbies thread and looking at the linked NTK pictures thread).

However, the Claimant knows that no NTK was in fact served because their agents found a new address but the C failed to reissue the NTK as has been the intention of the Government since Feb 2022 when the temporarily withdrawn statutory Code was first published.  That requirement was not challenged by the Trade Bodies and they have copied that clause into their own 'joint Code'.  So, there can be no keeper liability. It is common ground that no NTK was ever served to the Defendant. 

boraborabunny

Yes, Parkmaven use the POFA, sadly.  @Coupon-mad, if it is common ground that no NTK was served to the defendant do you think there is no need to include that in my defence, or is no NTK good for my case? Also, as they use POFA, is it still worth me mentioning that I wasn't driving, or is that point null and void? I have flight tickets and proof of being out of the country also. 

Coupon-mad

I wrote that 2nd paragraph for you to copy into the defence!  Could you not tell from the way it was worded?

boraborabunny

lol - I guess not! To be honest most of the communication in this forum is quite technical, so for me it was ambiguous!

Anyway, I've added some info to my defence, as well as your paragraph above. If it seem adequate then I'll email it tomorrow:

...However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Defendant was not driving the vehicle.

 

3. The Defendant received a letter from dcbl on 13/06/24 for an alleged parking breach and alleged unpaid parking charge from 06/04/24. This was the first contact the Defendant had from dcbl, The Defendant did not receive any Parking Charge Notices, there was no Notice To Keeper and the ‘debt fees’ were already highly inflated. The PCN was not served because the Claimant used an old address and failed to re-serve the PCN when a new address was traced.

4. However, the Claimant knows that no NTK was in fact served because their agents found a new address but the Claimant failed to reissue the NTK as has been the intention of the Government since Feb 2022 when the temporarily withdrawn statutory Code was first published.  That requirement was not challenged by the Trade Bodies and they have copied that clause into their own 'joint Code'.  So, there can be no keeper liability. It is common ground that no NTK was ever served to the Defendant. 

5. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and was out of the country when the alleged ‘contravention’ happened, and therefore should not be pursued for a ‘vague’ breach of the terms laid out in the particulars of claim. The Defendant, not being the driver of the vehicle, cannot say why, if at all, there were any ‘breach of terms’.

6. The Defendant categorically denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed.  With the exception of acknowledging their status as the registered keeper, no other admissions are made.  'Keeper liability' requires full compliance with the applicable law and is not automatic.

 7. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations.

Thanks for any feedback and your help so far...

Coupon-mad

Very good.

Renumber the usual Template Defence para 4 onwards so you don't miss any of it ... but DON'T show us the Template... please!

Then continue at each stage, as each bog standard letter is received in 2025, to follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  It's there and very thorough, so that posters don't need to ask about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

See you in several months time.   

sharpsand8

Hi @boraborabunny, any update?