We have a bland defence which covers all cases. Click on https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/ and scroll down to Q2) How should I defend?

Welcome back NorthMonk. You look as if you are trying to catch up with my wife who has has 12 PCNs on the go at one time. I have never paid one of them [nor has she] and quite a few have dropped off being more than six years with no contact. Others have cancelled and the rest have just gone silent.. I liked your letter having not heard "Go forth and multiply " for years. There is another one which I have used which can be read here. Quite funny if Parking Eye were the recipient. Arkell v. Pressdram NEWS.LETTERSOFNOTE.COM How to respond to a frivolous legal threat

Yeah I do have photos of it, and it is on my website and my page on the Saatchi gallery site. Yeah I was thinking of posting on Facebook about it. I did take screenshots, good idea about saving to Wayback archive, I didn't know I could do that. Thanks. I just sent a short email to John Pye Auctions, saying that they had auctioned one of my paintings that was stolen, and asked where they get it.

we've still not seen the supposed credit agreement from their WS? please make sure you upload EVERYTHING from their WS, the only thing we dont need are statements.

Thanks for letting us know. A NIP served beyond 14 days after the date of the alleged offence would not comply with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, so no prosecution could succeed. The police know this but it is not unheard of for them to offer a fixed penalty in such circumstances, hoping the recipient is daft enough to accept it. But note there would still be an obligation to respond to the accompanying "request for driver's details."

Paragraph 14 of your witness statement – you refer to "discernible beneficiary" and you say that this is what the 1999 act says. It's clear that you haven't read the act because this is not at all what it says. This is my interpretation and although in my view it's not a perfect interpretation and you shouldn't try to tell the judge that this is what the act says. Rather you should refer to what the act actually says and then if you want you can say that this can be taken to refer to a "discernible beneficiary". This worries me a bit because it suggests to me that you have been taking stuff from this forum without doublechecking.

I meant parking invoice

I expect you are sorry you didn't get your day in Court. It is always a good result when you don't even have to go to Court to get your win. Great result. And thanks for your donation. This Forum helps so many people who have problems not just with the parking rogues so it is important that they are able to continue their work through the financial help of members like yourself.