Thanks a lot for the replies, everyone.
Just to clarify where each PCN stands:
PCNs A & B: IAS appeal dismissed. These are the two with the Letters Before Claim.
PCNs C & D: IAS appeal successful (upheld).
PCN E: Never arrived in the post. The portal is now locked, so I couldn't appeal it.
I really appreciate the help from the seniors here. I'm not great with legal terminology, so could someone please help me draft a solid response that includes the points mentioned in the last post?
The deadline to reply is the 14th August, but I want to get this sent off as soon as possible. Also a few words on what to expect after sending off the response will be highly appreciated.
Many thanks.
A couple of initial observations:
Your proposed response refers to 5 different PCNs, which you label A-E. However from a read of the response, it's not entirely clear which of these 5 are the subject of the Letters before claim.
1. Definitive Legal Adjudication on Keeper Liability (POFA 2012)
The main problem with this argument is you haven't received definitive legal adjudication on keeper liability. Four cases have gone to the IAS on broadly identical grounds, 2 have been upheld and 2 have been refused. You mention that a "legally qualified IAS Adjudicator" has said that 2 of the appeals should be upheld, but a (presumably) equally legally qualified IAS Adjudicator has said that the 2 that are the subject of this case are enforceable. This is incorrect, and all 4 appeals should have been upheld and the charges cancelled, and you should point this out, but I'd avoid affording too much weight to the IAS process at all.
The risk you face in saying that the 2 that were upheld are somehow "definitive" is that it looks like you are saying "The IAS are correct and competent when they find in my favour, but are incorrect and incompetent when they don't find in my favour". A judge will/should have little regard for the IAS' findings, what he should care about is the law.
They have no lawful right to pursue me for these debts. Any attempt to litigate these remaining claims despite an independent body ruling their transfer process illegal constitutes vexatious litigation.
Finding that they failed to transfer liability does not mean that their process was ruled to be "illegal". At any rate, this relates again to my point above - the "independent body" did not reach that same conclusion in these cases. I'm not sure you can argue they are acting vexatiously in pursuing parking charges that the IAS have found they are entitled to pursue. I'd switch the focus here. You can still point out that 2 identical appeals were upheld and the same conclusion should have been reached here, but I'd keep the focus on why (i.e. the legal basis behind it) rather than what the IAS found in other cases.
3. Formal Request for ADR
They will point out that they have offered ADR in the form of an IAS appeal. They aren't required to offer it again in the event the resolution is not to your satisfaction. I'd skip this point. If it goes to a claim, there'll be mediation then anyway.
Finally, I'd make more explicit reference to the fact they've issued 2 letters of claim. State that you expect them to be consolidated into one claim if a claim is issued.
