• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

CP Plus SAR request

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So you write back to them and tell them that as the alleged breach according to the supplied PCN was in 2014 any claim would be statute barred and continuing to court would be unreasonable.

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi , they have come back with the correct paperwork with pictures of the car correctly dated, all the signage, and the original pcn tickets that were allegedly sent to me. I guess that’s it ? I should pay up?

      Comment


      • #18
        Can I make them an offer if I have to pay? Say just the original pcn charge ?

        Comment


        • #19
          They probably not agree the Bxxxxx?

          Comment


          • #20
            Can you post up all that PCN . Did you actually receive it? Is it addressed to you? If you did was anything else included with the letter? I would say you were not on the V5 as registered keeper and that is a letter to hirer

            Comment


            • #21
              ntks.pdf

              Comment


              • #23
                That’s what they are submitting as evidence against me

                Comment


                • #24
                  So looking at that NTK it is rubbish

                  so you state that though you were the keeper this car was shared between different employees. The claim has come so long after the event that you could not possibly be expected to have knowledge of the driver at the time. If you can show you were elsewhere the so much the better

                  The NTK fails in several ways and cannot possibly transfer liability from the driver at the time to the keeper.
                  • No invitation to keeper, 9 (2) (e)
                  • No warning of keeper liability, 9 (2) (f)
                  • Failed to identify the creditor, 9 (2) (h)
                  • Delivered outside the relevant period 9 (4)

                  For the excess charge look at this and incorporate. Basically the supreme court held that the initial charge, £85 at the time, was sufficient to compensate for debt collection action. Claiming extra is an abuse of process.

                  https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    Sadly I have no idea where I was on that day in 2015 or who may have been driving, So I guess in put the points you raised into the defence I submit to the court? Or offer them £85 to go away ? Thank you very much for your time by the way it is greatly appreciated

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      It's up to you, pay now, take it to court and pay £0 or about £200

                      Comment

                      View our Terms and Conditions

                      LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                      If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                      If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                      Working...
                      X