It's possible that it was cancelled. Who knows? Don't worry about anything unless you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) or an N1SDT claim form from the CNBC. Anything else regarding this can be safely ignored.
Also, there is a new "short" defence that is much more likely to have any claim either discontinued at a much earlier stage or struck out. This short defence has been drafted up on advice from a long serving district judge which will fit on a single side of A4 and also includes a draft order which no claimant has manage to fully comply with to date.
The judges mantra regarding roboclaimers:
What the defendants should strive to achieve is to make life:
As easy as possible for the Judge
And as difficult as possible for the claimant
My mistake. In which case, here's a suggestion. I am assuming here that PCM did not send you any additional documents with the notice? If they did let us know as the approach will be different.
The draft doesn't raise any of the other issues I mentioned about the actual 'parking' event. They won't be interested so save those for court if it goes that far. The main purpose of the initial appeal is just to show you're not an easy target, and that you're getting advice.
Dear sirs,
I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am appealing in my capacity as the vehicle hirer, having been nominated as such by [HIRE FIRM]. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
I note that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the hirer, using the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”).
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not
have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look
forward to your confirmation that no further action will be taken against me regarding this charge. If you do take further action, this will be rigorously defended.
Yours,
After hours of research I've found this post on another forum regarding the same location. It seems they have been taken to court and the OP won.
What is your take on this?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5869044/pcn-at-high-point-village-hayes/p5
My mistake. In which case, here's a suggestion. I am assuming here that PCM did not send you any additional documents with the notice? If they did let us know as the approach will be different.
The draft doesn't raise any of the other issues I mentioned about the actual 'parking' event. They won't be interested so save those for court if it goes that far. The main purpose of the initial appeal is just to show you're not an easy target, and that you're getting advice.
Dear sirs,
I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am appealing in my capacity as the vehicle hirer, having been nominated as such by [HIRE FIRM]. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
I note that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the hirer, using the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”).
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not
have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look
forward to your confirmation that no further action will be taken against me regarding this charge. If you do take further action, this will be rigorously defended.
Yours,