Court Case Gladstones next week, Court bundle finally received!

teccom

Okay I can add, still time, but in their WS they have no mention of "vicarious liability" and in my N180:-

14. The vehicle is owned by a body corporate XYZ Ltd and the registered keeper is the company Director of the vehicle and not the main driver, the Defendant rarely drives the vehicle and could not possibly have been the Driver of the vehicle on the dates stated in the Particulars of Claim so cannot be held liable ‘as Driver’ either. Further, there is also no possibility of vicarious liability by XYZ Ltd to the Claimant, since there was no
omission, contravention nor breach of contract by the Driver.

16. XYZ Ltd is the owner of the vehicle and MY NAME is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

17. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant company is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all. The employee submitting this defence works for, and is authorised to submit this defence by XYZ Ltd.


Not sure where the omission is that an employee was driving the car and not sure that the PoF gives them the right to know/ask of any arrangements, just the name of the driver which was provided prior to "proceedings".

Should I bring "vicarious liability" defence, as i have to then admit the guy was doing something for me in delivering/working at the site, which could in itself make a case for them on the front of "vicarious liability"?

Apologies I just want to be clear, and not hand them an argument that they have not issued in their WS, which was clearly covering some points of my N180 defence.

teccom

Okay so as per advice, remove #17, 18 & 19

And add a new #17 as
Notwithstanding that the Claimant has professional representation, the Claimant's particulars of claim are embarrassing, lacking numeration and the specificity required of PoC as set out in CPR Part 16, which prejudices the Defendant's ability to prepare a detailed Defence.

Or wack that in near the front mate?

teccom

Quick question on claim form for costs.

Does that need to be submitted prior to court or brought with me on the day?

I am about to take my WS up there soon!

Coupon-mad

I just need to clarify, as this is a little confusing:

Have they issued the claim to you an an individual person, not to the company?

Did you give the name and address of the driver at all, before proceedings began?

Have you got this CCTV as part of the evidence?

in fact am looking forward to taking to court CCTV footage of me on both occasions elsewhere, I run a CCTV company so have massive amounts of retention!

...because you haven't mentioned the CCTV evidence, here:

3) Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which I wish to rely upon;

i) Copy of letter to Claimants Legal Representatives with the name and address of driver before proceedings commenced.

ii) Picture of signs at time of alleged “parking event”.

teccom wrote: »

Quick question on claim form for costs.

Does that need to be submitted prior to court or brought with me on the day?

I am about to take my WS up there soon!

You need to submit your costs schedule/argument before the hearing, so is best taken there today as well. Also, ask the usher about playing your CCTV evidence, will it be OK for you to take a tablet or laptop in on the day or how will they enable your CCTV evidence that you were not driving? Make sure it is mentioned in your WS.

Notwithstanding that the Claimant has professional representation, the Claimant's particulars of claim are embarrassing, lacking numeration and the specificity required of PoC as set out in CPR Part 16, which prejudices the Defendant's ability to prepare a detailed Defence.

Have that at the front of the WS.

teccom

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I just need to clarify, as this is a little confusing:

Have they issued the claim to you an an individual person, not to the company?

Did you give the name and address of the driver at all, before proceedings began?

Have you got this CCTV as part of the evidence?



...because you haven't mentioned the CCTV evidence, here:






You need to submit your costs schedule/argument before the hearing, so is best taken there today as well. Also, ask the usher about playing your CCTV evidence, will it be OK for you to take a tablet or laptop in on the day or how will they enable your CCTV evidence that you were not driving? Make sure it is mentioned in your WS.




Have that at the front of the WS.

Okay,

Q1.
Claim addressed to me as individual.

Q2.
Yes by letter previously copied in to an earlier post, but only when I realised they were getting serious i.e. on receipt of Gladrags LBC, but well with the 14days.

Q3.
Yes I do have .avi footage of 5mins either side of the event, I was sat at my office desk sending/receiving emails all day, some +10miles away.

Q4.
I know I haven't mentioned it, I took a client to court once for non-payment and took PBX recorded calls, and as I had to play it on .mp3 player the Judge wasn't really interested in technology being used in the room, but perhaps that was because he had already made his mind up in awarding me the claim anyway so didn't want any further evidence.

Maybe I include screenshots in the evidence and then take it along on my phone if asked to view live/playback of footage?

Also I felt my case on the PoF front is strong enough?

Sorry if I have come across vague.

Coupon-mad

Maybe I include screenshots in the evidence and then take it along on my phone if asked to view live/playback of footage?

Sounds like a plan.

Also I felt my case on the PoF front is strong enough?

I do think you have nailed it and see that you are well prepared with those arguments. You didn't come across as vague, I just read too many threads in a row sometimes which can cause confusion as to which is which!

teccom

IamEmanresu commented about the "vicarious liability" aspect #30

I know his probably not had the chance to comment but what do you think about me not including the argument as per my reply to him, basically as they haven't brought it up??

I don't want to ignored a respected members advice, I just want to be sure should i put it in?

Coupon-mad

what do you think about me not including the argument as per my reply to him, basically as they haven't brought it up??

I would not mention vicarious liability but be ready to counter it, if they raise it at the hearing.

Castle

teccom wrote: »

IamEmanresu commented about the "vicarious liability" aspect #30

I know his probably not had the chance to comment but what do you think about me not including the argument as per my reply to him, basically as they haven't brought it up??

I don't want to ignored a respected members advice, I just want to be sure should i put it in?

With regards to "vicarious liability"; the claim would have to be brought against the Driver's Employer which would be your company, not you personally.

System

With regards to "vicarious liability"; the claim would have to be brought against the Driver's Employer which would be your company, not you personally.

It applies where there is a commercial relationship. Typically there is a belief that members of the same family cannot enter into contracts with each other e.g. a contract to do the ironing or tidy rooms. But there can be contracts where there is an intent to have a contract. So if Mr A works for Mr B or carries out commercial work, there is a contract.

Was there hired and reward? Driver is described as an employee.

Was the vehicle carrying out commercial work? Appears to be and would/should have the appropriate insurance I presume.

Was the Keeper engaged in a commercial activity? Was the van (apparently a personal vehicle) actually a commercial one.

As regards not mentioning it? PPC likely to have picked this one up given the OP's name and date of the case, so would be prepared to have it raised.