Capital car park / DCB Legal Claim form - Parking at Business Leased space

Brightlinks

KeithP said:

Brightlinks said:
What should be the next action ?

Didn't my earlier post address that?

I mean by regarding Not receiving LBC

KeithP

Brightlinks said:

KeithP said:

Brightlinks said:
What should be the next action ?

Didn't my earlier post address that?

I mean by regarding Not receiving LBC

Not worth mentioning.

Coupon-mad

And the Chan case doesn't apply to these POC, so just use the Template defence (please please don't show us the whole Template Defence).

Lack of LBC is almost irrelevant.

Brightlinks

Castle said:

The reason I asked about the photos is that Capital Car Park Control Ltd did not start up in business until 24th August 2020; just 7 days before the first PCN was issued. Therefore, I suspect that the signs won't be in the name of the limited company.

You may also want to check with DVLA and find out who exactly requested your personal details.

@Coupon-mad @CastleHow to dealt the issue within the defence ? 
Any template defence with the same situation ?

Le_Kirk

Brightlinks said:

@Coupon-mad @CastleHow to dealt the issue within the defence ? 
Any template defence with the same situation ?

If you mean how to deal with this claim in the defence, you need to use the template defence and adjust the paragraphs #2 & #3.  The POC claims that you parked in a "permit holder only" area where you should have had a permit or were unauthorised.  You need to answer that claim;
1.  the vehicle was authorised but the permit had slipped in the windscreen
2.  the vehicle was not parked in a "permit holder only" area
3.  the signs were illegible and it was impossible to know it was an "permit holder only" area 
4.  some other reason because only you know why the vehicle was parked where it was

Brightlinks

Le_Kirk said:

Brightlinks said:

@Coupon-mad @CastleHow to dealt the issue within the defence ? 
Any template defence with the same situation ?

If you mean how to deal with this claim in the defence, you need to use the template defence and adjust the paragraphs #2 & #3.  The POC claims that you parked in a "permit holder only" area where you should have had a permit or were unauthorised.  You need to answer that claim;
1.  the vehicle was authorised but the permit had slipped in the windscreen
2.  the vehicle was not parked in a "permit holder only" area
3.  the signs were illegible and it was impossible to know it was an "permit holder only" area 
4.  some other reason because only you know why the vehicle was parked where it was

1.  the vehicle was authorised but the permit had slipped in the windscreen - We have car park lease from landlord and awaiting permit from them.

as per @castle pointed out that the signage are not from the LTD company who issued the ticket and claim form, can we mention that point too ?

Le_Kirk

Brightlinks said:

1.  the vehicle was authorised but the permit had slipped in the windscreen - We have car park lease from landlord and awaiting permit from them.

If you are waiting for a permit from the landlord, how can it have slipped in the windscreen? 

Brightlinks

@Le_Kirk

it was my error - I did not receive any letter from capital car park so raised it with landlords agent and they queried with capital car park and they provided the photographic images. 

Actual reason was new permit was not received due to Corona, see the date of incident 31/08/2020 ( place was closed for 6 months and went their for regular checks )

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

And the Chan case doesn't apply to these POC, so just use the Template defence

(please please don't show us the whole Template Defence).

Like I said above.

Le_Kirk

Brightlinks said:

@Le_Kirk

it was my error - I did not receive any letter from capital car park so raised it with landlords agent and they queried with capital car park and they provided the photographic images. 

Actual reason was new permit was not received due to Corona, see the date of incident 31/08/2020 ( place was closed for 6 months and went their for regular checks )

Well, that is your defence - the PPC or their agents or you landlord failed due to contributory negligence and you cannot be responsible for, nor be penalised for their errors or shortcomings.