County court letter assistance

Logblahar

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

LOADS of repetition I'd say

For example 22 and 28

This is quite simple: you were not the driver, can prove it, and they have admitted they dint rely on pofa. You submit there has never Ben a case o answer, the claimant knew this,,and this is merely a last ditch attempt to scare you into paying something you have no liability in

No need for a detailed breakdown of e v l as you can prove you were not the driver.

Should I therefore remove this altogether?

Coupon-mad

Yes, and DJ Wright already knows her stuff!

Logblahar

I will take out the e v l points. Is the rest ok?

Coupon-mad

I would remove some repetition here by making this just 2 points, #30 and #31:

30. At 8.1 the claimant states that the defendant was entering into a contract with the claimant. Similarly, at 8.2 the claimant states that the defendant agreed to pay a PCN for any action breaching the Terms and Conditions. At 8.4 the claimant states that the claimant would be entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s) and that the defendant would also be liable for interest and any additional costs incurred. [STRIKE]i.e. parked without payment of the parking tariff for the VRM of the vehicle on site.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]31. This is denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and there has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant makes the assumption that the defendant was the driver and this is denied by the defendant and no proof to the contrary being provided by the claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their claim to prove driver identity.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]32. At 8.2 the claimant states that the defendant agreed to pay a PCN for any action breaching the Terms and Conditions, i.e. parked without payment of the parking tariff for the VRM of the vehicle on site.

33. This is denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and agree to pay a PCN .There has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant makes the assumption that the defendant was the driver and this is denied by the defendant and no proof to the contrary being provided by the claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their claim to prove driver identity.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]34. At 8.4 the claimant states that the claimant would be entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s). The defendant would also be liable for interest and any additional costs incurred.[/STRIKE]

31. These assertions are denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and there has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant would be potentially entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s), if the defendant was the driver or if they had followed rules on Registered keeper liability detailed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which they have not.

Logblahar

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would remove some repetition here by making this just 2 points, #30 and #31:

I will do that. Thank you for the advice.

Logblahar

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

LOADS of repetition I'd say

For example 22 and 28

This is quite simple: you were not the driver, can prove it, and they have admitted they dint rely on pofa. You submit there has never Ben a case o answer, the claimant knew this,,and this is merely a last ditch attempt to scare you into paying something you have no liability in

No need for a detailed breakdown of e v l as you can prove you were not the driver.

Are you saying I should remove 22 and 28 and replace it with wording along the lines of what is written above?

E v L is Elliot v Loake yes?

Umkomaas

E v L is Elliot v Loake yes?

Standard forum shorthand for the case.

Logblahar

Umkomaas wrote: »

Standard forum shorthand for the case.

Thanks just checking it was not Excel vs Lamoureux

Logblahar

Should I be adding anything about signs etc.

nosferatu1001

You add in absolutely everything relevant to your defence. This isnt a tricky concept - the defence sets out legal arguments, the WS provides the evidnece to support the defence.