so this was a windscreen PCN for the driver walking off the site?
scan up all the paperwork you have had to date and ignored to date
including the front page of the letter of claim and the windscreen ticket.
you've been here long enough and have known about this PCN long enough to have read cag to conclude you should NOT to have ignored the letter of claim
It's been a while since I had my head in this subject area, but Carey v HSBC was based on determining what the creditor could do to fulfill their obligations when issued with a s.77/78 request by the debtor. It determined that a reconstituted agreement would satisfy the request, so long as it was a true copy. It does not mean the agreement is enforceable if put before the courts. The debtor could, if provided with a recon, decide to accept it and carry on as normal, or dispute it (and potentially withhold payments until the dispute is resolved - if ever).
You are in the position of disputing the recon as being properly executed (amongst other things), which is now at the stage of being put before the court to resolve. Your protection is s.127(3) of the CCA 1974 (repealed in April 2006), which states:
s.127 (3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).
The above is what makes a recon unenforceable in your case - but, you need to make a positive assertion to that effect. Whilst DX says Carey is not applicable, I think it's relevant. It explains the role of a recon in law, and it also explains what a properly executed credit agreement looks like, to the extent that could be declared enforceable by an order of the court. It also confirms that the creditor can continue to attempt collection of the debt, but they have no means of recourse through the courts. I would certainly be quoting Carey in support of an assertion that the claimant's recon is unenforceable, and s.127(3) prevents the court from making an enforcement order where s.61(1) was not complied with - as appears to be the case. You will need to spell it out for the court within your statement though. If the claimant is relying on their recon as evidence of their compliance of s.61(1)a then they fail comprehensively due to... (list the points) ...look up what the required prescribed terms are and list them as not being present (the text cannot be read, so they cannot be said to exist on the agreement), and also that all the terms are not contained within the one document (Carey case goes into this in some detail).
You can also throw in your other points relating to the balance and reference numbers, default notice, etc. Pull their case apart with as many arguments as you can. Explain why certain things are needed for the claim to succeed and how the claimant's case does not stack up on those points. Force the claimant to defeat your arguments with appropriate proof/evidence. Cast doubt in every direction you can, but properly support your arguments.
Hope this helps.