Help

muth

Hi
I've got a first draft of a defence that I'd very much appreciate some of you knowledgeable people to cast your eyes over. I've also scanned the PCN and claim form (with identifying bits blacked out), but am not sure what the best way is of getting them on here if you need to see them. So, here it is, and thank you in advance for any help you can give me.

Statement of Defence: Claim No. XXXXXXXX; Date: xx/02/2018

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. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.

2. The Claim Form issued on the XX January 2018 by BW Legal was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by "BW Legal Services Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)".

3. The Claimant has not made clear in the Particulars of Claim what the cause of action is, which prevents a full defence being filed at this time. A parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

4. The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

5. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

a. whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge,
b. a copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage,
c. how any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time),
d. whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper,
e. whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter,
f. if charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which these are being claimed.

Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.

6. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant suggests that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements therefore there is no keeper liability under the POFA.

To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege the presumption that the keeper was the driver, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any reasonable presumption in law that the keeper is the driver. (Michael Greenslade 2015)

7. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67 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 landholder. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 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 case.

8. The signage on and around the site in question was small,
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
IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The
claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements
they also did not follow. Therefore no contract was been formed
with the driver to pay £100, or any additional fees or legal costs charged if unpaid within 28 days.

9. 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.

10. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser, then only the landholder 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 landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The Claimant has not produced evidence of failure to !!!8220;pay and display!!!8221; by the driver.

11. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, xx/02/2018 are true.

Signed: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Coupon-mad

This should be point #1 because it's a defence point:

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:

You need this near the start, so that the Judge knows it's like the driver DID pay & display, maybe as point #2:

2.1. The Defendant cannot remember who was driving the car, but whoever it was, would not have failed to pay and display a ticket.

2.2. It is not a car park that the various drivers of that car regularly use, and the Defendant had only been registered keeper of this vehicle for a week in December 2016, so it is quite possible that the wrong registration number was entered in the machine, if so (and there is no evidence) this would have been a minor human error that cannot be punished by a disproportionate penalty.

2.3. With regard to punitive parking charges which engage and breach the 'penalty rule', the Defendant relies upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Supreme Court's findings about penalties/punitive charges and the application of the penalty rule in most parking charge cases, unlike the rare decision they came to in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which, far from assisting the Claimant, positively condemns their charge as unrecoverable.

As it's Excel Parking Services, I would add the usual stuff re Simon Renshaw-Smith:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73852317#Comment_73852317

I wrote that one for another poster. Not exactly like yours as their is pre-POFA but see the stuff about Excel being banned by the DVLA and slagging off a court Judge, and Excel v Cutts and Elliott v Loake. Copy & use points from there, if you like.

muth

Here is the second draft of my defence, but before I paste it in I'd like to say how much I appreciate the kindness of all you good people on here and your willingness to help us newbies. Thank you.
Also, has anyone any comments on this from my earlier post?

One other thing is that BWL e-mailed me as well as posted a notice of county court claim. I have no idea how they got my e-mail address. Can they legally find it?

Here it is then with special thanks to Coupon-mad for your input.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED
Claimant

and

XXXXX XXXXXXX
Defendant


DEFENCE



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

2. The Defendant cannot remember who was driving the car, but whoever it was, would not have failed to pay and display a ticket.

2.1. It is not a car park that the various drivers of that car regularly use, and the Defendant had only been registered keeper of this vehicle for a week in December 2016, so it is quite possible that the wrong registration number was entered in the machine, if so (and there is no evidence) this would have been a minor human error that cannot be punished by a disproportionate penalty.

2.2. With regard to punitive parking charges which engage and breach the 'penalty rule', the Defendant relies upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Supreme Court's findings about penalties/punitive charges and the application of the penalty rule in most parking charge cases, unlike the rare decision they came to in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Beavis) which, far from assisting the Claimant, positively condemns its charge as unrecoverable.

3. No evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that the Claimant is/was the landowner of the land in question, or that it has/had any other right, standing or proprietary interest in the land on the material date. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it was at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and issue enforcement proceedings in its own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

4. Practice direction 22 sets out who may sign a statement of truth. Para 3.10 states that ''A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer''. The claim is signed by ''BW Legal Services Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)".

5. The Claimant has not made clear in the Particulars of Claim what the cause of action is, which prevents a full defence being filed at this time. The Particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct.

6. The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

7. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

a. whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge,
b. a copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage),
c. how any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time),
d. whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper,
e. whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter,
f. if charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which these are being claimed.

Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.

8. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant suggests that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

8.1. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements therefore there is no keeper liability under the POFA.

8.2. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege the presumption that the keeper was the driver, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any reasonable presumption in law that the keeper is the driver. (Michael Greenslade 2015)

8.3. The Claimant is known to seek to rely on the case of Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36, in order to mislead the court that this case created a purported precedent that amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver. In that case, the finding that the keeper was the driver was based on the provision of forensic and other evidence, none of which has been presented here. Elliot v Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil contractual matter, as decided in several county court decisions where the Judges dismissed Elliott v Loake as not applicable.

9. The claimant may seek to rely on the Beavis case. This claim can be easily distinguished from Beavis, which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the unusually compelling legitimate interests of the landowner (at that location only) in encouraging a turnover of free parking spaces. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis was the admitted driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85. None of this is applicable to this case, and the Supreme Court was at pains to state that each parking charge case would necessitate individual consideration of the facts, and that the penalty rule was certainly engaged in such cases.
9.1. Further, in Beavis at the Court of Appeal stage, the Judges held the case of a free licence to park under certain conditions, was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic transactional disputes. Parking charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers and this claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found were still a relevant and adequate test in less complex cases.

10. The Claimant's solicitor, BW Legal, is a notorious, serial 'robo-claim' firm, whose cosy relationship with various rogue parking companies, and unacceptable conduct in pursuing unjustified and inflated parking charges was recently 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary Second Reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, where one MP revealed he had reported this firm to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate. The Claimants themselves have also been named and shamed by MPs on several occasions, regarding their predatory and aggressive business practices, woeful signage and lack of evidence of any agreed contract.

10.1. The issuing of this claim appears to be an attempt to intimidate the Defendant into paying a punitive and disproportionate 'charge' for which the Defendant is not legally liable. This shows a complete lack of respect for the court process and also demonstrates the failure of the Claimant to attempt to mitigate losses, by making an extortionate and unjustified demand for £XXXX for an alleged failure to pay £0.50 on the day in question.

11. The signage on and around the site in question was small, 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 IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The Claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements it also did not follow. Therefore no contract was been formed with the driver to pay £100, or any additional fees or legal costs charged if unpaid within 28 days.

11.1. As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice.

11.2. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain, as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on its signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable/responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that the Claimant was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months.

12. 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.

12.1. It is averred that this Claimant has failed to make reasonable efforts to make the terms and conditions in any of its car parks clear and prominent. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in question was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the Claimant is relying.

12.2. The court's attention is drawn to the words of Simon Renshaw-Smith (previously known as 'Captain Clampit') in Excel v Cutts (2011, Stockport County Court), where Excel's signage was held to be deliberately misleading and deceptive, hiding any 'contractual charge' in the smallest lettering.

8.2. The unclear signage used universally by the Claimant was exposed in an article by the Plain Language Commission, which reported that Mr Renshaw-Smith wrote to Stockport MP Andrew Gwynne, ''The recent decision by Deputy District Judge Lateef, is an embarrassment to the judicial system. Such an off the wall judgment leads one to question if there was indeed an ulterior motive. DJ Lateef is not fit to serve the Civil Courts''. It is averred that this Claimant continues to demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the court process, and a disregard for the rights of registered keepers in 2018. What is plain is that the repeated exposure in Parliamentary debates condemning this Claimant and its solicitor is wholly justified.

13. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser, 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. The Claimant has not produced evidence of failure to !!!8220;pay and display!!!8221; by the driver.

14. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £XXXX. The Defendant 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.

15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed. In the absence of strict proof capable of rebutting the above points of defence, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no cause of action whatsoever against the Defendant registered keeper, and the Defendant invites the court to exercise its case management powers to strike the claim out without a hearing, since it has no prospects of success.


I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, xx/02/2018 are true.

Signed: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks more robust!

One other thing is that BWL e-mailed me as well as posted a notice of county court claim. I have no idea how they got my e-mail address. Can they legally find it?

Not unless you have put it in the public domain, or used it to appeal to Excel way back when?

muth

Thanks C-M. I'll get it emailed to the Court today. Still on the email I received from BWL - I have not corresponded with either Excel or BWL in any form. I'm not sure what to do about it, but I feel very strongly that I should challenge them on this. A google search only brings up unsolicited emails from marketers etc, so I'll have to dig a little further to see what I can do.
Cheers

muth

Update......my case has been transferred to Skipton County Court and the judge ordered that the claimant should serve amended particulars of claim, which it did in the correct timeframe. I now have to submit an amended defence. Should I open a new thread or continue this one?
Thanks

KeithP

Continue on this thread please.

All discussion on a particular parking incident should always be kept in the same thread.

Coupon-mad

my case has been transferred to Skipton County Court

Lucky you, the very BEST court for a defendant v Excel. Especially if the driver has never been admitted/implied or identified.

Read Lamilad's threads about his escapades and his transcripts (Excel v Lamoureux) same car park too I think:

a Keighley car park that they now no longer manage

Both transcripts are hosted by the Parking Prankster in his 'case law' pages.

muth

The second point of the revised PoC states that the claimant does not intend to rely on the POFA 2012. Instead the claimant submits that the defendant was the driver, and if I wasn't, I'm being unreasonable in not naming the driver, and in any event, any driver would have had my authority to drive the car, so I'm liable as a result.
This being the case, do I need to defend all their points about breach of contract and losses incurred, or just stick to the fact that the registered keeper can't be assumed to be the driver unless the POFA 2012 is followed?
They are obviously using a previously used set of particulars because this refers to the "defendant's appeal was unsuccessful as confirmed by the response annexed to these particulars of claim." I never appealed and no such response is annexed to the PoC.
They also refer to the car park currently being leased to the claimant and include an extract from the lease and a witness statement signed by a director of the claimant dated in 2018, when the lease expired in July 2017.

muth

I think my 14 day allowance to submit an amended defence expires tomorrow. I have been away for 8 of these days and have made an application to the Court for an extension, but haven't had a reply yet, so have to assume I will have to have something ready for tomorrow which i'll probably have to take myself to Skipton.
So, I've drafted an amended defence based on the revised particulars which now run to 6 pages. A print out of VRNs, dates, and times is also included. The main thrust of the claim is as I have said above; they are not relying on POFA, but submit that I was the driver and have, therefore, breached a contract that I clearly entered into when I entered the car park.
I'm hoping someone will be able to have a look at this before I have to take it on tomorrow. I've tried using "track changes" on my original defence, so you can see what I've changed, but it doesn't pick them up when I copy it into here, so I'll just have to put the final version in.
Here it is, and thank you.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SKIPTON CLAIM NO


BETWEEN: EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED Claimant

and

Defendant


AMENDED DEFENCE



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

2. The Defendant cannot remember who was driving the car, but whoever it was, would not have deliberately failed to pay and display a ticket.

2.1. It is not a car park that the various drivers of that car regularly use, so it is quite possible that a genuine oversight occurred in a failure to pay and display a valid ticket at a cost of £0.50. If this was the case it would have been a genuine human error that cannot be punished by a disproportionate penalty.

2.2. With regard to punitive parking charges which engage and breach the 'penalty rule', the Defendant relies upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Supreme Court's findings about penalties/punitive charges and the application of the penalty rule in most parking charge cases, unlike the rare decision they came to in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Beavis) which, far from assisting the Claimant, positively condemns its charge as unrecoverable.


3. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant suggests that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), yet the Claimant states in the Particulars of Claim that it does not intend to rely on Registered Keeper liability under the POFA.

3.1. Notwithstanding the above, it is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements therefore there is no keeper liability under the POFA.

3.2. The Claimant has submitted that the keeper was the driver, and the Defendant expressly denies that there is any reasonable presumption in law that the keeper is the driver. (Michael Greenslade 2015)

3.3. The Claimant is known to seek to rely on the case of Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36, in order to mislead the court that this case created a purported precedent that amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver. In that case, the finding that the keeper was the driver was based on the provision of forensic and other evidence, none of which has been presented here. Elliot v Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil contractual matter, as decided in several county court decisions where the Judges dismissed Elliott v Loake as not applicable.

4. The claimant may seek to rely on the Beavis case. This claim can be easily distinguished from Beavis, which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the unusually compelling legitimate interests of the landowner (at that location only) in encouraging a turnover of free parking spaces. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis was the admitted driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85. None of this is applicable to this case, and the Supreme Court was at pains to state that each parking charge case would necessitate individual consideration of the facts, and that the penalty rule was certainly engaged in such cases.
4.1. Further, in Beavis at the Court of Appeal stage, the Judges held the case of a free licence to park under certain conditions, was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic transactional disputes. Parking charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers, and this Claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save its charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found were still a relevant and adequate test in less complex cases.

5. The Claimant's solicitor, BW Legal, is a notorious, serial 'robo-claim' firm, whose cosy relationship with various rogue parking companies, and unacceptable conduct in pursuing unjustified and inflated parking charges was recently 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary Second Reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, where one MP revealed he had reported this firm to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate. The Claimants themselves have also been named and shamed by MPs on several occasions, regarding their predatory and aggressive business practices, woeful signage and lack of evidence of any agreed contract.

5.1. The issuing of this claim appears to be an attempt to intimidate the Defendant into paying a punitive and disproportionate 'charge' for which the Defendant is not legally liable. This shows a complete lack of respect for the court process and also demonstrates the failure of the Claimant to attempt to mitigate losses, by making an extortionate and unjustified demand for £243.32 for an alleged failure to pay £0.50 on the day in question.

6. The signage on and around the site in question was small, 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 IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The Claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements it also did not follow. Therefore no contract was been formed with the driver to pay £100, or any additional fees or legal costs charged if unpaid within 28 days.

6.1. As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice.

6.2. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain, as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on its signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable/responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that the Claimant was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months.

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.

7.1. It is averred that this Claimant has failed to make reasonable efforts to make the terms and conditions in any of its car parks clear and prominent. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in question was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the Claimant is relying.

7.2. The court's attention is drawn to the words of Simon Renshaw-Smith (previously known as 'Captain Clampit') in Excel v Cutts (2011, Stockport County Court), where Excel's signage was held to be deliberately misleading and deceptive, hiding any 'contractual charge' in the smallest lettering.

7.3. The unclear signage used universally by the Claimant was exposed in an article by the Plain Language Commission, which reported that Mr Renshaw-Smith wrote to Stockport MP Andrew Gwynne, ''The recent decision by Deputy District Judge Lateef, is an embarrassment to the judicial system. Such an off the wall judgment leads one to question if there was indeed an ulterior motive. DJ Lateef is not fit to serve the Civil Courts''. It is averred that this Claimant continues to demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the court process, and a disregard for the rights of registered keepers in 2018. What is plain is that the repeated exposure in Parliamentary debates condemning this Claimant and its solicitor is wholly justified.

8. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £50 and “contractual costs” of £60. This sum of £60 has, in earlier correspondence to the Defendant from BW Legal been referred to as “initial legal fees”. The Defendant 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.

9. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed. In the absence of strict proof capable of rebutting the above points of defence, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no cause of action whatsoever against the Defendant registered keeper, and the Defendant invites the court to exercise its case management powers to strike the claim out without a hearing, since it has no prospects of success.


I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, dated …….2018 are true.