Claim Form Received from UK Car Management Limited

Coupon-mad

mebobby said:

Dear @Coupon-mad,

Thank you for your response I have been looking for the Template Defence thread for the past hour. Is it under how to submit AOS?  If I am unable to locate it would it be possible to link it.

In the meantime I will go back and look for it again. Thank you.

You've been looking for a sticky thread for an HOUR... despite my signature telling all newbies how to get straight to page one in less than a second?

And KeithP also gave you a direct link to the NEWBIES thread second post Today at 4:46PM

The Template Defence is not only a sticky thread in its own right (so if you prefer, you can always just hop straight there using the breadcrumb trail my signature tells everyone to use) but it's very clearly linked in the second post of the NEWBIES thread that Keith provided the link for.  He links that because you need to read it first.

mebobby

@Coupon-mad,

Oops sorry. I am very new to all of this.

KeithP

The Template Defence is cunningly hidden in a thread entitled...

Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024

mebobby

Apologies for the silly question, when it comes to the Chan and Akande case do I just include the link or the transcripts of the judgement?

Coupon-mad

I'd say either, at defence stage, and full copies at WS stage as exhibits.

prowla

mebobby said:

@prowla

No thank you-no more demands for Money :-)

Hehe!

Of course (as you know), my point was anybody can issue a demand for money; whether or not it is valid is something you can always question.

There was a TV program a while back where someone set up a parking company - they put up a few signs and then started sending out official-looking invoices.

We've just had an outcome where TfL issued a fine for an alleged traffic contravention and it had to be escalated to the adjudicators who have said (i) there was no offence, (ii) that it should never have been issued, and (iii) have instructed them to cancel it. In the interim we received a number of threatograms from TfL demanding increased payments and so-on. They even lied on paper and made up rules in their submission to the adjudicators.

Last year we contested a demand for money from a private parking company (ie. an invoice laid out to look just like a fine) in which they alleged the vehicle hadn't been registered at site; despite photographic evidence of the sign-in page, they persisted in their demands. We escalated it up the site's management chain and eventually received a notice confirming that we had indeed signed in and the company had been instructed to withdraw the claim.

Now, neither of these went to court, but the point is that these claims can be flawed (for many reasons) and overturned.

Good luck with your defence!

mebobby

@prowla

I totally agree with you but it just gets a little frightening when a letter appears from the Court. 

Thank you for your kind words 🙂

mebobby

Hello,

Is this sufficient for denying driver liability for the POC previously provided?

Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 of the POC is denied as the driver did not breach the parking terms outlined on the signage. Paragraph 2 is also denied as no PCN was issued on 05/03/2024. Despite the defendant being the registered keeper of the vehicle, Paragraph 3, concerning driver/keeper liability, is denied. Paragraph 4 is denied as the claimed amount is grossly inflated (a PCN cannot be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred. The Claimant’s request for Statutory Interest of £12.35, along with 8% per annum continuing at £0.04 per day, is unlawful. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations.

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

It's enough but you could also object to the interest - point out there's no start date for it, nor can it be calculated on £170

mebobby

@Coupon-mad

Is this ok?

Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 of the POC is denied as the driver did not breach the parking terms outlined on the signage. Paragraph 2 is also denied as no PCN was issued on 05/03/2024. Despite the defendant being the registered keeper of the vehicle, Paragraph 3, concerning driver/keeper liability, is denied. Paragraph 4 is denied as the claimed amount is grossly inflated (a PCN cannot be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred.  The claimed interest is unlawful because there is no specified start date for its calculation, and it cannot be based on the excessively inflated amount of £170 for damages.The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations.