Claim Form Recieved following failed appeals (wrong date also)

Seasider86

So section 3 and amend as needed. Keep section 1 and 2 from what I have posted above?

The Claimant alleges a parking charge from 10/10/20 but did not issue a Notice to Driver. Under POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days (by 24/10/20) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. The NTK was issued on 05/11/20 and received on 07/11/20, 27 days after the event, and therefore not compliant with POFA. Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently began using POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices so they cannot rely on POFA to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2020. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. As liability cannot transfer to the keeper and no evidence has been provided as to the driver, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be dismissed.

Seasider86

The Claimant alleges a parking charge from 11/05/2022 but did not issue a Notice to Driver. Under POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days (by 15/15/2022) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. No NTK was issued within this time frame and therefore not compliant with POFA. Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently began using POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices so they cannot rely on POFA to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2022. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. As liability cannot transfer to the keeper and no evidence has been provided as to the driver, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be dismissed.

Seasider86

* By 25/05/2022 for NTK (sorry for OG error)

Seasider86

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

...The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. The Claimant alleges a parking charge from 11/05/2022 but did not issue a Notice to Driver. Under POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days (by 25/05/2022) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. No NTK was issued within this time frame and therefore not compliant with POFA. Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently began using POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices so they cannot rely on POFA to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2022. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. As liability cannot transfer to the keeper and no evidence has been provided as to the driver, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be dismissed.

Is this ok?

Gr1pr

Yes, but you have to adapt it to suit the facts, so finding an adapted template like I showed you saves hours of DIY

Nobody expects you to be a lawyer or even to understand it, but it's either follow the advice and DIY  or pay a legal eagle to do it all for you, which is what the parking company have done 

I sent you the link to a recent case already approved,  requiring little or no work from you

Bear in mind that this is a parking forum, not a legal service or forum, we help those to help themselves,  it'd your case, so you do the work with guidance from us

Coupon-mad

You still need the bit about the POFA untruth as seen in all Smart defences. There are at least two in the posts today. There is no need to search if you're finding that hard. Just look down the thread list.

Seasider86

We ready to go?

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

The Defendant (myself), has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. The Claimant alleges a parking charge from 11/05/2022 but did not issue a Notice to Driver. Under POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days (by 25/05/2022) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. No NTK was issued within this time frame and therefore not compliant with POFA. Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently began using POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices so they cannot rely on POFA to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2022. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. As liability cannot transfer to the keeper and no evidence has been provided as to the driver, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be dismissed. The defendant denies all claims made by the Claimant. The Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the dates stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper around this time. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 11/05/2022, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

I'm worried you've said you weren't the driver but in your first post you tell us (and you told POPLA) that you were driving.

Also, remove the repetition in para 3.

And remove this: "The Defendant (myself), has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant."

Seasider86

Ahh, oversight. I'll get that changed. I'll remove the repetition too. Thank you