Notice of County Court claim from legal recovery company for parking fine

[BabyDriver]

Thank you, I'll try and digest that paragraph and deconstruct the PCN.
Is this the only grounds you can see?
Is a tokenistic settlement offer normal?

[ostell]

This is the normal method to deny the charge, along with unclear signs and signs not there

They are not likely to accept a token offer.

THere was a frustration of contract in that you were not able to complete the contract because of events outside your control ie the machine would not take any more money.

The offer and conditions were varied and accepted by performance by the machine in accepting an additional £5 and still issuing the ticket without returning any money.

The notice to Keeper fails to comply with POFA
8 (2) (d) The amount owing is not specified, only a statement that a partial payment was received or no payment rather than a specific amount.
8 (2) (e) is not present
8 (2) (f) The warning to keeper is not given in the prescribed format.
8 (2) (h) failed to identify the creditor.
8 (8) none of the required details for independent adjudication were given.were given
With failure to comply with the requirements that must be included then the claimant is no able to transfer liability for the carge to the keeper of the vehicle.

I can't see dates but is there a date of posting in there 8 (2) (i) ?

Is that date between day 28 and 56 8 (4)?

Check that I have read the PCN correctly.

[BabyDriver]

Thank you Ostell, that has really helped me understand '8'.

I calculate they sent the PCN letter 40 days after the alleged contravention, there is no reference to a date of posting.

These grounds are not in my filed defence - I returned a quick defence under pressure because no claim was served, the court have now admitted this. The court said they would be in touch when they received a response to my defence from the claimant.
Under the circumstances I assume they must accept additional defence grounds.

When I said 'Is a tokenistic settlement offer normal?' I meant their tokenistic offer of a settlement - that we pay £200.
Should I make a return offer?

[ostell]

You can make an offer to them and see if they accept. Say £50?

I noticed your other thread. If you can get permission from the court to issue a full defence because you had to rush because of their error.. If you send it without permission it is probable that it will be rejected.

With POFA non compliance there is a reasonable chance of getting their claim rejected, or at least reduced.

[BabyDriver]

Thank you Ostell.
Do you think it is okay to wait and see what the court say (if the claimant continues with the claim when I don't take their settlement offer) and then depending what the court say, inform the claimant that I intend to apply to the court to amend the defence?
Is it considered a good idea to make an offer? Do you happen to know anything about bylaws at ports with regard to parking charges?

[ostell]

Normally there is a charge to submit an amended defence (£255 I believe) so you need to get that permission from the court as soon as you can and get that defence in.

I haven't seen any previous mention about ports. Tell me more. Not Southampton by any chance? If the land is subject to byelaws then it is not relevant land for the purpose of POFA and therefore liability cannot be transferred the keeper, only the driver is liable.

[BabyDriver]

Thank you Ostell.
Whilst skimming through other parking posts here looking for relevant similarities I read a mention of ports and bylaws. I don't recall which post.
The port was Hull, at the ferry terminal. Do you know if there's a simple way to find out if there are bylaws?
We don't know who the driver was. Not legal game playing, it was one of two people, we absolutely don't know which one. How does that work?! (The memories of the day are all around the stress and inconvenience of their machine not working and asking port staff for help whilst we were under time pressure.)

[ostell]

There are probably byelaws in effect. Phone up the harbour commision and ask if there were byelaws in the area where the car was parked. Search on the internet as well. I searched on "Port of hull byelaws" and lots of hits. Try and find a map that covers where the car was parked.

So the defence would be that the land is subject to byelaws and is not relevant land as defined in POFA paragraph 3 and so liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

Then add the bits about even if POFA was available then they have failed to comply (as I noted above.)

[BabyDriver]

Thank you Ostell. So many strands to this defence!