Vehicle Control Services County Court Claim Form Received

catfunt

(disregard......... )

jennifergriffin

Many thanks salmosalaris..

I have left it until now to post because to be honest I completely forgot about the whole thing until their trial bundle landed on my doorstep.. my ex (ironically the one who was driving the car) and I (well mainly me obviously because he's a useless idiot) have been sorting out our separation and the house, which has taken priority.

I presume I am too late now to just tell them who was driving? So wishing I had done this back then but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I will put together the stuff you say, thank you

The_Deep

I have just reread this thread and notice that they quoted Eliot v Loake very early on. This was a case involving Police forensic evidence in a Mags court, nothing to do with "own space" parking.
at all.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5253885

Personally, I do not see how you can lose, no keeper liability, no contract, no losses, they would be mad to persist. Do not forget to claim for your time if they fail to show.

jennifergriffin

Many thanks The Deep. I will mention this point.

They have stated in their reply to defence that they do not dispute I was in London at the time of the offence but are suggesting I had parked the car there earlier on in the day and left it there all day (why I would do this when I have a garage I have no idea) anyway my ex had the car with him all day at work and he dropped me at the station that morning, he is willing to write me a statement saying this, does it need to be a formal witness statement or just a letter saying to whom it may concern, signed by him etc?

jennifergriffin

After a bit more advice please?

In their trial bundle the claimant states that it does not wish to rely on schedule 4 of the pofa and refers to paragraph 4 (6) of schedule 4 the act accepts there are other remedies available to the creditor when it states: "nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle"

what??

then goes on to say they wish to reply on the precedent set under Elliott v Loake

So far I have written this... do you chaps think this is ok? obviously I have no legal training but hoping it's good enough.

WITNESS STATEMENT
I, Jennifer Griffin of address, will say as follows:
1. ‘I’ am the defendant.
2. Unless otherwise indicated, what I say in this witness statement I say from my own knowledge.Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.
3. I am employed by firm as a research manager and have been employed since January 2013.
4. I was the registered keeper of vehicle registered XXX on the day of the alleged infringement but was not the driver.
5. Further to my original defence statement I would like to add the following information.
6. Point 9 of the claimants reply to defence states that there has been no proof provided by the defendant as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the breaches, consequently they have assumed that I, being the registered keeper, was the driver. I refer you to exhibit JA1 – train ticket booking confirmation proving I travelled to London from Tamworth at 8.03 and returned at 21.33 on the day of the alleged offence and JA2 – bank statements of the defendant showing transactions in London on the day of the alleged offence. Point 9 of the claimants reply to defence also states that “the claimant does not dispute that the defendant was in London” but suggests that I entered the car park at an earlier time and had left the car at that location all day whilst I was in London. I refer you to exhibit JA3 – witness statement from Mr X confirming that vehicle registered XXX was driven by him to drop the defendant at the station at 8am on the day of the alleged offence and the vehicle remained in his works car park until 5pm the same day when he finished work. I also refer you to exhibit JA4 – witness statement of office manager Ms Y of firm, confirming that I, the defendant was indeed at the London office from 10.15 until 19.00 on the day of the alleged offence. Therefore I, the defendant, beyond all reasonable doubt was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.
7. The claimant has not complied with the strict statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (see exhibit JA5) and consequently cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable for this purported obligation. As the claimant has not complied with POFA, I the defendant cannot be held liable as the registered keeper.
8. The claimant has stated in points 23-30 that it does not wish to rely on Schedule 4 of the PoFA and instead wishes to rely on the precedent set by Elliot v Loake, whereby the prosecution had to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the registered keeper was the driver. I note that the defendants point above (6) along with aforementioned exhibits should demonstrate that I, the defendant was NOT the driver, thereby rendering the claimants points inaccurate.

TBC...

I also want to mention that the actual parking charge notice does not state anywhere what the actual contravention was, it is circled AO other and they have written in their bundle that the infringement was on the back of the ticket (I guess they're hoping I don't still have it) but this is NOT the case.

Do you think these 2 points will be enough?
Many thanks

Herzlos

jennifergriffin wrote: »

After a bit more advice please?

In their trial bundle the claimant states that it does not wish to rely on schedule 4 of the pofa and refers to paragraph 4 (6) of schedule 4 the act accepts there are other remedies available to the creditor when it states: "nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle"

They mean the act only applies if they are trying to claim keeper liability via the act, and they are not. They are relying on Elliot Vs Loake, which is a completely invalid comparison. In it, a hit-and-run case, the defendant stated he was the only one with access to the car keys, but wasn't the driver, and the paint on his car was a forensic match for the other car. It's relying on 2 things: Forensic evidence, and a statement from the keeper that it couldn't have been anyone else.

Neither of those exist in your case; there's no forensic evidence and you're not claiming to be the only one with access to the car. On the contrary they've accepted that you were somewhere else at the time.

You've stated that the case reference is invalid, but it might help to go into more detail as to exactly why it's not valid.

You also want to add as many points as possible, but it can only expand on your initial defence (I think)?

jennifergriffin

many thanks for explaining Herzlos, I will expand on it

The_Deep

You might like to sound off about that 140 plus page submission. This is a small claims court where disputes are meant to be settled by non legal chappies without the assistance of lawyers.

This sort of thing makes a mockery of the system and is intended to bully the appellant into throwing in the towel.

Herzlos

Especially if you can highlight how many of those 140 pages are irrelevant or just filler. I bet it's at least half.

jennifergriffin

Thank you Herzlos and The Deep, having read more and more of it, a lot is just filler - 4 cases they've referred to take up about 50 pages and and 35 pages is my initial defence with pictures etc.

Definitely trying to scare me... not working, I've decided not to worry about it, hoping I have a nice judge who realises that its unfair these cowboys trying to charge me £100 for my car being parked outside my own bloody garage, esp when I wasn't even the one who parked there. If I lose and have to pay I'll try and get the money back from my ex who was the idiot who parked there...or I'll be selling all his clothes (that are currently still in the spare room) on eBay hahaha!