Issued with a County Court Claim Form

BlueMan

I have been issued with a County Court Claim Form from SIP. I have responded to the Claim Form online saying that I wish to defend the claim.

Up to now I have not responded to any of the letters from SIP and I did not appeal to POPLA (I wish I had now, but the information I read in past told me to ignore the letters).

I was not the driver at the time of the incident.

I would like to get some pointers on how I should go about writing up my skeleton defence. All help is greatly appreciated.

I will post the PCN and following letters from SIP shortly (I have edited versions removing all personally identifiable information).

BlueMan

Scrap that, is there no way I can post the links to the uploaded images of the letters?

Crabman

Welcome to MSE :hello:

If you upload them to a hosting site you should remove the http:// bit before posting here. The forum will prevent you posting links until you have a few more posts.

There is a help thread here about uploading and posting images:

How to Upload & Post Images

BlueMan

Claim Form

postimg.org/image/zf9parkeb/

PCN Page 1

postimg.org/image/qhql9r7mv/

PCN Page 2

postimg.org/image/jt2nm3vzh/

PCN Page 3

postimg.org/image/ec50gg3hx/

BlueMan

Letter 1 Page 1

postimg.org/image/xelgf7tct/

Letter 1 Page 2

postimg.org/image/a9mzmouu9/6cf9f7f2/

Letter 2

postimg.org/image/rw1z3rnnz/

anniecave

A few questions for starters

I assume it's your car (or was at the time)?

You say you weren't the driver. However is it somone in your family or a named driver or whatever, or was in fact the car stolen at the time (for example)?

If you know the circumstances of the incident, was the car was actually parked in the car park without a ticket at the time?

GermanKeeper

I complete the links in the quote:

BlueMan wrote: »

Claim Form
http://postimg.org/image/zf9parkeb/

PCN Page 1
http://postimg.org/image/qhql9r7mv/

PCN Page 2
http://postimg.org/image/jt2nm3vzh/

PCN Page 3
http://postimg.org/image/ec50gg3hx/

The notice to owner (registered keeper) was sent on 21/06/13, but this is out of time:

If there was a notice to driver on the windscreen of the car at 03/03/13 the NTO has to be sent between day 28 and day 56 after the parking event (roughly speaking in April).

If there was no notice to driver on the windscreen, then the notice to keeper has to arrive within 14 days after the parking event.

This means that there is no keeper liability in this case. So it will be easy to defend the claim.

But the experts will tell you if it is better to name the driver in your defence or if it just sufficient to write that you have not been the driver.

GermanKeeper

Here are the completed links to the final letters:

Letter 1 Page 1
http://postimg.org/image/xelgf7tct/

Letter 1 Page 2
http://postimg.org/image/a9mzmouu9/6cf9f7f2/

Letter 2
http://postimg.org/image/rw1z3rnnz/

HO87

As GK has said

Out-of-time, non-compliant NtK (dated Day 103 served ???, doesn't detail the original NtD - if there actually was one - and no creditor identified) + no evidence of driver = fail.

They have made it amply clear that they are following POFA in both of their putative "Final Notices" so should be interesting

GermanKeeper

You should have a close look at the case of @spacecowboy55, which is very similar to yours: Notice to keeper/owner out of time, SIP is the claimant, keeper is not the driver:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784029

A skeleton defence is already available in his thread.

Coupon-mad

GermanKeeper wrote: »

You should have a close look at the case of @spacecowboy55, which is very similar to yours: Notice to keeper/owner out of time, SIP is the claimant, keeper is not the driver:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784029

A skeleton defence is already available in his thread.

Good shout.

The OP should also IMMEDIATELY (as well as acknowledging the court paperwork) send an email complaint today (written as the REGISTERED KEEPER ONLY, NOT STATING WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE DRIVER!) to the BPA:

[EMAIL="david.m@britishparking.co.uk"]david.m@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]

... saying that this rogue AOS member is sending out court papers and before that, a 'final notice' which actually said 'served under the POFA 2012' when they have failed to establish rk liability. You were not the driver and you are not liable at all. Some of the many failures you have noticed already in the attached documents are:

- The Notice to Owner was wholly non-compliant with POFA as it was sent too late after an alleged 'PCN' and failed to inform the keeper about POPLA and give the keeper the information that POFA requires in a NTK.

- The 'Final Notice' breaches the CPUTR 2008 as it claims to have been served under a law that doesn't give the said 'notice' any such authority at all. It misstates the legal position, especially as SIP have failed to establish registered keeper liability due to the multiple NTO failures and omissions.

- state that you expect the BPA to investigate ALL such instances from SIP because it is in the public domain that they are litigious and yet routinely fail to comply with POFA nor do they inform registered keepers about POPLA. This is an apparent rogue PPC marauding through the private parking notices and court processes with no regard given to the BPA CoP or to POFA 2012. As such, this surely requires sanction points; ask the BPA what the investigation outcome is because time if of the essence and you are now defending this rubbish, having got court papers. Ask if this is an example of how the BPA have been 'driving up standards'?

As far as defending is concerned you will find a lot of links & info on SpaceCowboy55's thread. DO NOT rely on the BPA to cancel this, once you have reported SIP.

YOU STILL HAVE TO GET A DEFENCE IN TO THE COURT IN TIME.

These threads, links and advice already given should help as well:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63254977#Comment_63254977

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4585747

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63488451#Comment_63488451

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83901&st=0&p=883618&#entry883618

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81957

Your defence must rebut every point they have made in their claim form and on any of their notices, so you would say 'It is denied that the defendant parked...blah blah...as the defendant was not the driver'. 'It is denied that the defendant is liable because SIP have failed to follow the strict requirements for registered keeper liability...blah blah' and stuff like 'It is denied that SIP sent a 'valid Notice to Owner' because it was wholly invalid (wording not compliant with POFA 2012) and sent too late, should have been called a Notice to Keeper and had multiple omissions which have been officially reported to the BPA in a complaint.' And more, in the bullet point style sown in SpaceCowboy55's thread; you should debunk their signage and everything about this claim.

If this ends up in a hearing you will win I suspect but I can't see SIP pushing it that far. Many PPCs drop out and this is a cheap shot to try to make you scared and pay. Beware that they read these forums, we know that. It's good that you were not the driver so make that clear as well because without rk liability they are stuffed (no requirement on you to name the driver).

Here are some cases to read where people have won when a PPC takes this rubbish to a hearing; you can cite these in defence too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62971894#Comment_62971894