Okay they have now replied to my defence. They seem to be just trying to completely ignore the 14 day thing and suggesting that they can push to say it was me driving on balance of probabilities. Which in itself is odd as multiple people can and are insured on the vehicle. Do I just ignore it or reply reiterating the timings bei g later than 14 days and that multiple people are insured on the car?
Here is the reply
------
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
We now respond to the same as follows.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.
The vehicle registartion /////// was Parked In Excess Of The Permitted Free Time, accordingly the parking charge was issued correctly.
The vehicle bearing registration //////// was parked in excess of the permitted free parking period. Accordingly, the Parking Charge was issued correctly,
In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our Client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated.
You now have 30 days from the date of this emailto make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
-----------