I missed the date to response to Claim Form

TRUTHSEEKER

Hello
I have ticked for private parking but i just throw away it on the location it was issued and was sure they won't be able to send notice to car keeper. And parking company [ UK Car park management limited] failed to send any notice to my address, but I was flooded with letters from DRP. All were ignored.
I have done a picture of car parking with tiny notice board on a left side to the entry as it is on opposite side of driver,so you can easily miss it by entry at rainy night time. and have a picture of the sign.
FAnaly, after few mounts Gladstones sent me few letters. I responded to the second as a copied sample from this forum that they fail to do this claim in righ way. In a response they sent after 2 weeks letter before claim..and after a claim form.

I Need help how to defend me after Claim Form and acknowledgment is done, but a data to response nearly is gone ! or likely i already missed it[form was issued 11JUL] I did acknowledgment on line but didn't get any confirmation email with final date to respond. And now even can not get log in moneyclaim.gov website
I was so busy and upset cos this form was issued that I ignored to do any actions, pushing it to deal later.. and i come across this forum for help .
1.so, If can I still try to send defence if a date is passed? I was considering to make an offer them to pay part [£30-50] of £242 to make easier to rid off of this problem, cos I got language barrier.
2.I'm on debt management plan for few years now and just last month made IVA [indvidual voluntary agreement for 6yars ] my credit history is mess up in any way. So, I legally dont have any spare amount to pay all but can afford max £50
3. How court can force me to pay all if I'm in a dept management plan ? it=f that fact can impact court solution?


Thank you for any advice!

Coupon-mad

I did acknowledgment on line but didn't get any confirmation email with final date to respond.

Errmm...and why on earth did you think there would be one, where does anyone say this happens (of course there is no confirmation email prompting you to defend a claim you've already acknowledged so are clearly aware of). Clearly you don't sit and wait to be spoon fed by the MCOL system.

If you don't care about another CCJ then I guess it won't matter that you are probably too late to file a defence.

But in the time it took for you to start this new thread, why didn't you simply show us a draft defence, you could be emailing one by tomorrow morning and hoping it's filed in time. Don't write about being too late but make no effort to even try.

Defence - NOW - email tomorrow before noon. If you write you don't know how to defend it, I'm out.

Softwaremad_2

If a default CCJ has been put in place you need to take it to the people that manage your IVA and have it added to that - good luck

TRUTHSEEKER

Thank you Coupon-mad for your fast response. I'm just able now to reply NOW after my work shift ends and i can sit behind a computer. i really cound not replay earlier..sorry!
I fully agree with your comments .

I got crafted such a bulky defense letter [see below] and if should I add to it that a sign to parking is very bad visible for a driver at dark and rain [plus pictures]?
And I'm not sure if point 8 is correct in my case cos I didn't oficial by the letter request any prove information from Gladstones or claimant which are mentioned there in point 8.
But I did a call to DRP and said that I don't have any notices either on the window or by post and i need to see prove of that..but didnt get any after the call.

---

Dear sir/madam,
As the defendant and registered owner of the vehicle [….] I am writing TO DEFEND AGAINST ALLEGATION which was received on 17 JUL on behalf UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED.


First and foremost, this claim is not accepted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, you should be aware under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

It was put to ‘strict proof’ that UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
has a claim against the keeper of the vehicle, however, it is apparent they have not abided by the above act and the necessary correspondence was not sent as required. Should claimant continue to assert the appropriate notices were issued, Without this any claims made are deemed invalid.

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no complaint ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

(b) The Claim form Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclosed no clear cause of action.

2.The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

3. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £120 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. The signage on and around the site in question was small, hardly visible for driiver on left side of the entrance to the parking, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to following its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver to pay the amount demanded by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED


a) UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorization stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. The claimant has yet to respond to Part 18 Request by the Defendant which was sent to Gladstones Solicitors:
a) A request to explain if UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is making a claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as an occupier in their own right.
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is for a genuine pre estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum
c) A request to provide copies of the signs on which UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
d) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1.

e) A request to provide a copy of the PCN terms and conditions

f) A request to provide copies of any letters sent, including the original Notice to Keeper.

g) A request for a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.

h) A request to provide if there were any changes to the amount claimed owed, and what was the basis for this change.

i) A request to find out how keeper details were obtained.

j) A request for reasons why the keeper has liability.

9) The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. For this claim the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was ‘entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
11. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
12. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
13. The Defendant invites the court to strikeout the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence, 08/07/2016 are true."

Coupon-mad

I got crafted such a bulky defense letter [see below] and if should I add to it that a sign to parking is very bad visible for a driver at dark and rain [plus pictures]?

Yes you can add a point near the start, to say that:

Any parking terms or details of a 'parking charge' penalty are illegible in hours of dusk or darkness. The Defendant contends that there is a lack of entrance signage, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice, and will bring evidence to the hearing of an inadequate, small font-size and unlit noticeboard on the left, not in view of a driver's seat in dark and rainy conditions, as was the case on the evening in question.



You must attach NO pictures or evidence at this stage, just the defence - email it over the weekend without fail, to the CCBC and hope they let it through, you may as well try.

Change #8 to remove the bit about a part 18 request if you didn't send one, and change it to the fact that the Defendant asked for copies of all photographs and letters relating to the case, from the Claimant's debt collector agent, and none of this was supplied at all.

Change the start, removing things like 'you should be aware' because your defence is addressed to the court, who are not ''you'':

[STRIKE]First and foremost[/STRIKE]Liability for this claim is not admitted. [STRIKE]accepted[/STRIKE]. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident and no Notice to Keeper was served or received by the Defendant.
[STRIKE]Also, you should be aware under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question. [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]It was put to ‘strict proof’ that UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
has a claim against the keeper of the vehicle, however, it is apparent they have not abided by the above act and the necessary correspondence was not sent as required. Should claimant continue to assert the appropriate notices were issued, Without this any claims made are deemed invalid.[/STRIKE]

Change 4 because the Beavis case was about £85:

and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 [STRIKE]£120[/STRIKE] after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

And you can't backdate the defence to say 8th July!

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence, [STRIKE]08/07/2016[/STRIKE] are true.

TRUTHSEEKER

Thanks, Coupon -mad, i'll update it as you suggested and will send here to final OK.
I think, do I need to introduce myself or somewhere write a claim number?

TRUTHSEEKER

Do I need to fill any paper from claim forms i received by post and send along with defense letter?
Now I have this version, and goijg to find heading part stick on top:

Dear sir/madam,
As the defendant and registered owner of the vehicle [….] I am writing TO DEFEND AGAINST ALLEGATION which was received on 17 JUL on behalf UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED.


Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, a court should be aware under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.


It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no complaint ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

(b) The Claim form Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclosed no clear cause of action.
c) Any parking terms or details of a 'parking charge' penalty are illegible in hours of dusk or darkness. The Defendant contends that there is a lack of entrance signage, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice, and will bring evidence to the hearing of an inadequate, small font-size and unlit noticeboard on the left, not in view of a driver's seat in dark and rainy conditions, as was the case on the evening in question.

2.The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

3. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. The signage on and around the site in question was small, hardly visible for driiver on left side of the entrance to the parking, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to following its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver to pay the amount demanded by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED


a) UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorization stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. The Defendant asked for copies of all photographs and letters relating to the case, from the Claimant’s debt collector agent, and none of this was supplied at all:
a) A request to explain if UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is making a claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as an occupier in their own right.
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is for a genuine pre estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum
c) A request to provide copies of the signs on which UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
d) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1.

e) A request to provide a copy of the PCN terms and conditions

f) A request to provide copies of any letters sent, including the original Notice to Keeper.

g) A request for a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.

h) A request to provide if there were any changes to the amount claimed owed, and what was the basis for this change.

i) A request to find out how keeper details were obtained.

j) A request for reasons why the keeper has liability.

9) The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. For this claim the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was ‘entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
11. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
12. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
13. The Defendant invites the court to strikeout the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence is true.”

Coupon-mad

Yes you need the usual headings at the top, as you see in the examples of defences linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2. Look for a Dropbox linked example defence, that should show you how it must look and what to put as headings.

You must sign and date a printed out copy, and that is then scanned and emailed to CCBC.

This isn't the wording I gave you:

Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, you should be aware under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

TRUTHSEEKER

is this heading is ok?

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: _xx__

Between:

Gladstones solicitors v _[my name and surname]__

Defence!Statement

Dear sir/madam,
As the defendant and registered owner of the vehicle [….] I am writing TO DEFEND AGAINST ALLEGATION which was received on 17 JUL on behalf UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED.


Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.


It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

However, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no complaint ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

(b) The Claim form Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclosed no clear cause of action.
c) Any parking terms or details of a 'parking charge' penalty are illegible in hours of dusk or darkness. The Defendant contends that there is a lack of entrance signage, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice, and will bring evidence to the hearing of an inadequate, small font-size and unlit notice-board on the left, not in view of a driver's seat in dark and rainy conditions, as was the case on the evening in question.

2.The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

3. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. The signage on and around the site in question was small, hardly visible for driiver on left side of the entrance to the parking, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to following its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver to pay the amount demanded by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED


a) UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorization stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. The Defendant asked for copies of all photographs and letters relating to the case, from the Claimant’s debt collector agent, and none of this was supplied at all:
a) A request to explain if UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is making a claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as an occupier in their own right.
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is for a genuine pre estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum
c) A request to provide copies of the signs on which UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
d) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1.

e) A request to provide a copy of the PCN terms and conditions

f) A request to provide copies of any letters sent, including the original Notice to Keeper.

g) A request for a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.

h) A request to provide if there were any changes to the amount claimed owed, and what was the basis for this change.

i) A request to find out how keeper details were obtained.

j) A request for reasons why the keeper has liability.

9) The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. For this claim the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was ‘entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
11. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
12. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
13. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence is true.”

KeithP

dziugaso wrote: »

Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

This paragraph still doesn't seem right.

I don't think "I am writing to inform you" has any place in a defence.

Coupon-mad

Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

No.

I gave you the wording to use instead!


Typo here:

1. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no [STRIKE]complaint[/STRIKE] compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.