Free Traffic Legal Advice

Could you post up the original PCN?

Are the original images visible now?

Let me know if not.

I think the original notice was probably in time, but I didn’t see it for some time as the letter got accidentally put unopened into a box of paperwork and I only found it after the time to appeal.

I’ve had various threatening letters up till now and responded as per the advice above. As expected I just got template nonsense replies.
I was advised to wait till the actual claim arrived, which it now has nearly 2 years down the line. So I think now I need to reply to that properly and swiftly.

I can confirm I have not at any point revealed or even hinted at the drivers identity (this forum has taught me well!). I can also confirm and would testify under oath that the driver was not me.

I just want to try and make it go away as I’m tired of it now.

Thanks!

Ok… I hadn’t noticed that.

What about all the other comments above about the claim being not detailed, the issue re VAT, boiler plate responses and the like?

Someone said earlier that this will be struck out or discontinued on that basis even if it was in time? It’s a few posts back. Let me know if you can’t see anything with the documents I posted last year.

I’d rather throw everything at them to get them to discontinue.

I've looked through various threads and have got myself a bit confused about all of this process, as its all very new to me.

Can anyone give a guide to exactly what and how I need to submit and what the process is, timelines etc (ideally with examples - I've seen example wording in other posts but I don't know enough about this to know how similar my case is?

Assume I know nothing about any of it. Over the last couple of years I've been various lines of attack here and I want  to try to encompass them as best I can

The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.

It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15 March therefore.

You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment of Service, either of which you do through MCOL.

If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14 days, or 29 March.

It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.

Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.

Thanks - I am really not sure what needs to be in a defence, vs a witness statement et.  Ideally I want this struck out or discontinued before getting any further so I want to get it right

I’m about to file my defence. How does this sound?

(I asked ChatGPT to help me write it so would be good if someone could just check its correct)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper because the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In particular, the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with POFA paragraph 9, and therefore no keeper liability can arise.
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3–7.5. They do not set out the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to amount to a breach, the legal basis for the sum claimed, nor the basis on which the Defendant is pursued as keeper. The claim discloses no cause of action and should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. The Defendant’s family member was the driver. The driver attempted to pay for parking but the on-site payment machine was out of order. The driver then attempted to use the advertised mobile app, which repeatedly failed to load and process payment. The driver left the site to find an alternative method of payment, which is permitted under the BPA Code of Practice grace period provisions. No contract was formed because payment could not be made due to the Claimant’s own equipment failure.
5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including its terms, prominence, lighting, and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant avers that the signage was inadequate to form any contract with the driver.
6. The Claimant’s added £70 “debt recovery” or “damages” sum is an abuse of process. It is not recoverable under POFA, the BPA Code of Practice, or the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Government’s 2022 Impact Assessment confirms that such add-ons are “designed to extort money from motorists” and are unlawful. Numerous County Court judgments have struck out or disallowed these false add-ons.
7. Even if a contract had been formed (which is denied), the Claimant has suffered no loss. The original parking tariff was not paid due to the Claimant’s own failure to provide a working payment mechanism. Any alleged breach was caused by the Claimant’s failure, not the driver’s conduct.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its landowner authority. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has standing to issue charges or pursue litigation in its own name. A strict chain of authority is required.
9. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success and being an abuse of process. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
10. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this Defence should further information be provided by the Claimant.