Claim Form Recieved following failed appeals (wrong date also)

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.

  

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.  

 

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

Yes that'll do.

Gentle nudge to then do this survey within the few days left. It's really important!

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline next week.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.