Parking Ticket - Court Letter Received

PC_MANC

What should I select for my reason to dispute the claim? 

Do you dispute the claim because you have already paid it? *

 No, for other reasons
 Yes, I paid the claimant

I did pay and still have my ticket (the machine didn't print the full registration off).

Gr1pr

Did you complete the AOS online stage   ?  If yes you disputed,  or should have disputed,  the whole claim 

Guidance on the AOS stage is in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

I told you this a week ago 

PC_MANC

Yes, I have completed the AOS stage. I did go to start the defence and then went back and re-read your responses. You then messaged again as I was completing it. AOS is completed.

1505grandad

An observation:-

". The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred five years ago,..............."

" Moreover, given the passage of over four years and the lack of specific details ........."

Coupon-mad

PC_MANC said:

What should I select for my reason to dispute the claim? 

Do you dispute the claim because you have already paid it? *

 No, for other reasons
 Yes, I paid the claimant

I did pay and still have my ticket (the machine didn't print the full registration off).

It's not asking about the tariff!

Think about what the question means, given not all cases at small claims are parking cases. The CNBC have no idea about the minutiae or a tariff. They are asking whether you have already paid the CLAIM.

Don't forget the Consultation closes on Friday.

PC_MANC

Thank you. 

Am I right in thinking I have a further 14 days to submit my defence after submitting the AOS?

I was going to complete the consultation once I've submitted my defence.

Gr1pr

PC_MANC said:

Thank you. 

Am I right in thinking I have a further 14 days to submit my defence after submitting the AOS?

I was going to complete the consultation once I've submitted my defence.

NO

 Issue date was 18th August,  so as long as the AOS has been done after the 23rd, then your defence deadline is 4pm on 22nd September , plenty of time yet   ( 3 weeks   ) , so you can do both 

PC_MANC

Sorry for the lack of update. I attempted to submit my defence however, I over exceeded by 15 lines. I rewrote 2 & 3, checked and it fits. 

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). , save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, which complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule. Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability’. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases.
3. 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 02/08/2021 as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred over four years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver. This raises questions about whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA-compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over four years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.

The Claimant has never relied on POFA 2012 and cannot hold registered keepers liable. The Defendant denies receiving a compliant Notice to Keeper and believes the £70 add-on is unjustified, as it was not shown on signage and was added after years of inaction. This tactic inflates the claim beyond the original £100 PCN. The Defendant relies on appeal judgments in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith (Manchester, 2017) and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward (Teesside, 2023), where courts confirmed that registered keepers cannot be presumed to be drivers and are under no obligation to identify them. These precedents will be adduced in evidence. 

1505grandad

The above seems more than usual in a Defence (no doubt the experts will comment shortly) but, as you state:-

" The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred over four years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver."

you still have not, as advised a few times previously, added the "untruth" para usually stated in Smart cases.

Coupon-mad

That is very wordy indeed.

Read this one for the para you missed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624960/smart-parking-unfairly-taking-me-to-court-via-dcbl-please-help/p1