PCN. Court claim defence

[Bitterlemon]

Good morning all, first time posting so please advise if I miss etiquette.
I have received a claim form from the county court business centre for a parking charge from a private firm.
This relates to a PCN issued back in 2016 in an area I no longer live, for a car I no longer own.
The first correspondence I received was in 2020, the initial letter being ignored as I thought it was a scam (no details as to why or when the PCN had been issued, just a demand for money and my old registration)
After receiving a second letter with some more information, I responded and eventually got the dates, and photo of my previous car parked incorrectly (rear tyre slightly over the white line). A close up photo of the parking sign (I have no idea where this is in relation to the car park, or my car, as it is a photo on a wall)
I also received a copy of the PCN that was allegedly issued, but I don't believe I received, as well as a copy of an additional PCN for a person completely different person and case. Due to the time period, and moving areas twice since (my address has always been correct with DVLA during each move) I am finding it difficult to construct a defence as I do not know who the driver was at the time, what circumstances caused the car to be parked in this manner or the manner in which the signage was displayed at the time. I also believe that in sending me another person's PCN, a breach of GDPR, they have demonstrated not being able to handle information.
I responded with a refusal to pay under "The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012 and was not received within the timeframe specified in the Act"
further stating that no proof of posting was identified and that they had proven mishandling of information by sending me someone else's parking fine.

Can anyone assist in my defense to the court? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

[Bitterlemon]

Attached detail of particulars of claim 20210721_110952.jpg.PDF

[ostell]

So an unclear PoC.

Post up a redacted copy of the alleged PCN, leave dates, and pictures of the signs.

If you gave somebody else's details then breach of GDPR. Inform that person and let them take action as well

[efpom]

Firstly, if the POC was issued on or after 6th April 2020, the statement of truth is not in proper form and consequently the POC cannot be admitted in evidence.

Secondly, my understanding of the law is that an agent cannot bring proceedings in it's own name. - the word 'managed' in the POC.

[Bitterlemon]

Incorrect reply

[Bitterlemon]

Attached detail of particulars of claim [ATTACH]n1584326[/ATTACH]

Please see attached POC with info redacted. Let me know if I have missed anything and thanks very much for your help

[Bitterlemon]

So an unclear PoC.

Post up a redacted copy of the alleged PCN, leave dates, and pictures of the signs.

If you gave somebody else's details then breach of GDPR. Inform that person and let them take action as well

Please see attached PCN with info redacted. Let me know if I have missed anything and thanks very much for your help.

[Bitterlemon]

Firstly, if the POC was issued on or after 6th April 2020, the statement of truth is not in proper form and consequently the POC cannot be admitted in evidence.

Secondly, my understanding of the law is that an agent cannot bring proceedings in it's own name. - the word 'managed' in the POC.

Thanks EFPOM, what does that mean for me? Would that be that I request it thrown out?

[ostell]

They haven't complied with the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable. 9 (2) (f) is incorrectly stated and there is no period of parking as required in 9 2) (a).

No doubt they are claiming more than the £100 so have a read of this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0

[efpom]

On failure to verify Particulars of claim aka Statement of case see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part22

On a company signing a statement of truth, see
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...rt22/pd_part22

On who is entitled to issue a claim see https://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966...&alloworigin=1

Have you entered a defence to the claim?

[ostell]

CPR 31.14 for details of what they intend to use, including the PCN and the signs that created the alleged contract. Shortcuts panel on this page.

What date is on the claim form? Have you acknowledged it online but nothing in the defence.

[Bitterlemon]

On failure to verify Particulars of claim aka Statement of case see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part22

On a company signing a statement of truth, see
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...rt22/pd_part22

On who is entitled to issue a claim see https://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966...&alloworigin=1

Have you entered a defence to the claim?

The date on the claim form is 15/07/21. I acknowledged the claim on the 21/07/21, but have not yet submitted a defence. I think I've got 14 days from acknowledgement?

[Bitterlemon]

They haven't complied with the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable. 9 (2) (f) is incorrectly stated and there is no period of parking as required in 9 2) (a).

No doubt they are claiming more than the £100 so have a read of this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0

That's an interesting read, it does seem very similar in terms of inflated costs

[Bitterlemon]

Each and every allegation in the Claimants Particulars of Claim is denied by the Defendant.

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.


The Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. According to Practice direction 22 - Statements of truth The Particulars of Claim statement of truth is not in the correct format, nor is the statement of truth signed or dated, and should be inadmissible in evidence
2. I do not believe that the claimant has a right to issue an action. It is unclear who the owner of the car park is or the status of the claimant if they have a right to act as an advocate on behalf of the car park owner
3. The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 8 (4) and was not received within the timeframe specified in the Act. The defendant did not receive any correspondence or notification from the claimant other than a letter dated 17 February 2020 to inform of the issue being passed to BW Legal.
4. The extended duration of the notification has added significant difficulty in building a defence.
5. Correspondence dated 24 April 2020 is a letter of a Parking Charge Notice, but gives no evidence this was sent to the correct address which was registered with DVLA, accompanied by a PCN for an unrelated 3rd party at an address in Bridgend, which gives concerns for their management of personal data and ability to select the correct address.
6. There is no record of the driver agreeing to pay within 28 days as the driver is not known.
7. The contract is in unfair as per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 Part 1 paras 10 and 14

• The poorly placed signage gives no duration into which the signage can be observed to agree to the terms. Merely parking would enter into a contract. This would not allow the consumer to become acquainted with the contract
• There is no justification for the additional costs and no mention of damages in the contract; the inclusion of additional costs on the claim form appear to be an addition at the discretion of the trader

1. The claim is in breach of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 4 (5)

The copy of the notice to keeper the defendant eventually received was to a maximum £100 (£60 if settled within 14 days) The amount requested on the claim form is £160 with the additional legal representative fee of £50. This would double recovery and an abuse of process

1. The copy of the notice to keeper is in breach of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 (2)

No period of parking is identified in the notice

1. The contract does not satisfy the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 2 (3)(b)(ii) in that they are inadequate

• Photos of the location show poorly placed signage at only 2 locations, both easily obstructed from view on entering the car park or by a vehicle.

• The photo evidence of the signage given as evidence to the defendant of the car park signage on the day is so close to be questionable as to where it was placed and if able to be viewed by the driver of the vehicle.

1. I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.