Thanks Ericsbrother will get on with that.

Hey Ericsbrother I'm doing most of the leg work and research / reading hence the I's and we's etc.....apologies for confusion....for clarity: Driver is not and has not been named. Spouse is being sued. Spouse is Keeper of the vehicle. Spouse was not driving and can prove this. From what can be seen on the NtK, they are pursuing spouse 'assuming he was the driver of the vehicle'. As we understand it they can pursue the keeper if the NtK meets POFA (as you said) but they cannot pursue the keeper based on the assumption that the keeper was the driver as this is not in accordance with POFA. Does that make sense / sound about right?

Thanks. Yes I'm using MCOL but the websites Acknowledgement of service looks different to what everyone describes....i.e theres no defence text box? so I was just trying to make sure I was doing the right thing. Here are the Particulars of Claim as appear on the form verbatim: The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXX (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on xx/11/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Lawson Road Car Park Lawson Road Brigho The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £x.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day. The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim formare true and I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement Signed Amount claimed £170 Court Fee £25.00 Legal Rapresentatives costs £50 Total Amount £245

Phew. Thanks for not bailing on me, thought I'd blown it for a minute then! Great thanks. Have just drafted letter (CPR31.14) will post up asap same for claim form. RE MCOL... .have followed instructions on how to acknowledge service of claim... .but there's no defence box? I know I don't put anything in the box but I'm worried i'm doing this all wrong! Have created an account, entered all details, ticked the I intend to defend all of this claim.. ..It then goes to the final page and asks for a tick in the 'I am the defendant' box, a tick in the 'I have read the guidance' box and a typed signature. Does that all sound right?

Alas 'Big holes' is an understatement. Doing the best I can and am ever grateful for everyone's help. Received claim yesterday. Am currently prepping defence. Completely out of depth here but refuse to give up. Thanks again.

Thanks ericsbrother. The second letter did not contain 'waffle' about reasonable measures. It was a second request (almost identical to the first letter) requesting all info. I'm not sure sure what you mean when you say 'clear that you accept that you did enter into a relationship with them'. Re-requesting info is something that should not have to be done. Just shows how uncooperative G's are being surely? Especially since they haven't even responded to the second request? I realise they have 6 years from the date of issuance but I was unsure as to whether at this point due to the fact they haven't thus far complied with PAP, if there were any grounds for this matter to be now closed?

Thanks for that Ericsbrother and numnumnum. In the end we did write a second letter requesting all items which G's will be relying on in court. Just to show in court (if it gets that far) that all reasonable measures have been taken on our part. Since then everything has fallen silent. It's been approx 6 weeks since the last letter was sent to them. Is there anything we can do at this point to make this go away or do we just have to sit tight and wait for Gladys to decide what they're doing? Have been cautiously prepping defence whilst waiting.....

Ha. I must confess...a small victory dance was performed.

We have had a reply from Gladdy’s today. They have dated the letter 5th April and given 30 days to respond, the letter was only delivered today a whole week after the letters date!!! !!!128545; They have not included anything that was requested in the above letter but merely state that their LBCCC is ‘compliant with the most up to date version of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Protocol and a such you will not be issued with an amended copy’. What do I do now? Do we re-request the docs again or sit tight and wait for the Claim form? TIA

That did make me chuckle. . I take your point. I will wait patiently....

Yes but just wasn’t sure if they could be underhanded and forego notifying that they were starting claim procedures...thereby gaining a default judgement (eventually) Sorry I think maybe the conspiracy theorist in me is getting the better of me

Just had a thought. There’s no way that they can issue a claim and us not know about it is there? There would definitely be something that comes through the post? Having a slight panic that something might be missed

Ha ha. Thanks, I can’t take credit for it though. Yes I fear you are right

Ha ha! I hated chemistry! Here's the letter sent....had to put 'I' in one or two para's :-0: Gladstones Solicitors The Terrace High Leigh Park Golf Club Warrington Cheshire WA16 6AA 19th March 2018 Your Ref: Dear Sirs, Thank you for your Letter Before Claim of 6th March 2018. The alleged debt is disputed and will be vigorously defended. The Driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the Registered Keeper. Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon nor does it contain any mention of indeed what evidence your client intends to rely on. This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Please provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols by sending me the following information/documents: 1. an explanation of the cause of action 2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed) 5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim 6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver 7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed 8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) 9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated. 10. All photographic evidence showing where the car was parked when the (alleged) breach was made. 11. Images of the time displayed on the P&D machine at the material time. 12. Evidence that the time on the machine was correctly synchronised with GMT. 13. Details of the amount that was paid and the length of overstay (as these details were not in the Notice To Keeper) and so does not meet the POFA 2012 on this basis. I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. This information is also needed in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b). If your client does not provide this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and © and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information. The Notice to Keeper which has been served is not compliant with POFA 2012, since there can be no assumption made that the keeper was the driver thus cannot rely on POFA Schedule 4. The registered keeper cannot be held liable under any applicable law, nor can any assumptions be drawn (Henry Greenslade, Barrister and Erstwhile Lead Adjudicator of POPLA confirmed the position in law in the annual POPLA Report). Any debt to your client is denied as they have failed to show locus standi and failed to follow the protocols of paragraph 6 and 9 of the POFA to create any liability by anyone in this matter. Also, as the demands made by your clients breach paragraph 4(5) of the POFA this means the contract is an unfair contract and is void under s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Practice Direction also requests the claimant should set out a suitable form of ADR, your letter has failed to do this also. Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided the above information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided. Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook. I trust this will not be necessary and look forward to receiving a fully compliant letter. Yours faithfully. Used the resources on mse forum and tweaked it to suit. Hope it can maybe help someone else struggling with the same! Will keep you posted on what comes back...look out for the screamng banshee if/when a claim comes through!!!

That’s great Dragonfly thanks. Should I upload the letter for you to take a look at when it’s done?

Yes I saw that they were owned by the same people quite early on in my investigations. Not entirely sure how the IPC are ‘independant ‘! Finalising letter, will hopefully have it done by tonight!

Identical PCN has ben brought to my attention, seems this really is big business for HX!

Here's the NTK with the images. You can just about see the times in top left corner.

Ok so here’s the pdf of all the letters he’s had so far. God I hope the upload worked! Scrawled all over the photos to obscure them as wasn't sure what to do? Sorry! They don't show the car is parked, it's actually in motion, we have no idea where the pics were taken. Scannable Document on 18 Mar 2018 at 16-32-24.pdf

Thanks you guys, this is a real help. I’m just figuring out how to get the pdf’s On here off my phone. Shouldn’t take me long. Stick with me...I’ll get there!!

Thanks so much for this, We really do want to fight this as it’s completely unreasonable. I will get on with filling out the ‘form’ above and posting pics of all the letters so far. I think I will send them a reply to the LBCCC, it’s worth a shot...maybe they’ll not bother filing a claim...unlikely I know from what I’ve heard but at least we gave it a shot! Thanks so much for your quick response.

Thanks in advance for this site and all the posts and advice You are all the reason we have decided to put up a fight. Just for a context.... I have spent the last week reading everything I can possibly fit in to my brain on this subject and I just need some clarification on some points. My family and I were away for 6 weeks (28 Nov 2017- 10 Jan 2018) in New Zealand during that time my husband received a PCN (£60 early repayment) dated 29th Nov 4 days after the alleged incident (25th Nov) from HX Car Park Management Ltd. The PCN was for overstaying a pre paid time that was paid for. Needless to say we didn't see this or the next 'Outstanding Parking Notice' (£100) dated 28 Dec until we returned home on on 10th Jan. He got another letter dated 12th Jan which was a 'Final Demand Notice' (£125). At this point he freaked out completely, as you do, checked his diary and saw that he was not even the driver since he was working 40 miles away that day. I immediately wrote a letter (since he didn't have the time) (dated 19th Jan) telling them that he was not the driver and could provide proof of this if required, gave them a copy of flight ticket to show we were away and so couldn't respond to their letters and asked them to stop sending letters of a threatening nature and posted it recorded delivery. Obviously I did not look at this amazing forum (or indeed any of the other ones we have since come across) first (more fool me). We heard nothing for 2 months and then last week received an LBC from Gladstone Solicitors giving 30 days to cough up the now £160! I have since looked at so many forums and legislation, including the Pre Action Protocol, POFA and have whittled down what I think we need to do now which is draft a letter to Gladstones asking for: 1. an explanation of the cause of action 2. whether they are pursuing the driver or keeper 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 4. what the full details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed) 5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim 6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver 7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed 8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) 9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated. Is this the right thing to do? And may I post a copy of my drafted letter on here for you guys to check it's ok if you wouldn't mind that is? 10. All photographic evidence showing where the car was parked when the (alleged) breach was made. 11. Images of the time displayed on the P&D machine at the material time. 12. Evidence that the time on the machine was correctly synchronised with GMT. 13. Details of the amount that was paid and the length of overstay (as these details were not in the NTK) so NTK does not meet the POFA 2012 on this basis. They haven't stated that they are relying on the POFA in any of their letters and although they seem to have included most of the details required of them in the NTK as per the POFA they haven't been completely concise on all counts and the photos they provided do not have the car parked but is actually in motion on what looks like a main road. My brain is swimming with everything I have read and I can't decide what the next best course of action should be. Your help and comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!