Absolutely, their revised particulars of claim being significantly incorrect needs to form part of your defence.
I'd be tempted to be careful with the wording of the defence here for reasons I'll explain. It seems very
unlikely that a Notice to Driver was ever affixed to the vehicle, but we don't know for sure. What we do know is this:
- When the driver returned to their vehicle, no Notice to Driver was present
- None of the claimant's evidence shows that a Notice to Driver was present
I'd be tempted to frame the argument on this point from this perspective. It can then be denied that the claimant can rely on the provisions of PoFA for several reasons. Firstly, you deny that a compliant Notice to Driver was served for the reasons above, and put them to proof that one was served. Then you can move on to the fact that if, as claimed, a notice to driver was served, then their subsequent Notice to Keeper was not issued within the relevant period, further reinforcing that no keeper liability can apply.
Of course, also point out the material errors (such as the March date) - you could probably do this as two points: "It is denied that a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March 2024, as the alleged parking event occurred over 8 months later on 30 November 2024. The Defendant draws attention to the Claimant's representative signing a statement of truth stating his belief that the facts in the Particulars of Claim are true, despite this not being the case." Then: "It is further denied that a compliant Notice to Driver was served on the material date. No Notice to Driver was present when the driver returned to the vehicle, and none of the exhibits provided by the claimant show any such notice affixed to the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant Notice to Driver was properly served."
"Even if a compliant Notice to Driver was served, it is denied that the subsequent Notice to Keeper complies with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act..." and so on.
