Claim Form (CEL) | PoC INCLUDED in Claim Form??

denchgang9

Hello all,

I've been doing my due diligence for the past 6 hours straight, so I think I'm starting to get to grips with next steps.

I've started a new thread as my last one is a bit messy and I feel more informed now with the research I've done.

Background:

Firstly, do I have a leg to stand on here....

- Never received the initial PCN from CEL which claims to have been submitted end of 2016... My first ever correspondence came over 2 months later as a "final reminder before legal action" from CEL with a ridiculous £100 fee... I never even had an option to pay the original PCN, even if I had been in the wrong!?

- I did email them back then and have proof of this requesting to see the original PCN and evidence of the incident, they never responded.

- I have since received letters from ZZPS (all ignored), Wright Hassall etc...

- The "incident" occurred on a Bank Holiday... though the sign in smallprint (having revisited the site) shows parking needs to paid all year round - should this be mentioned in defence?
we do not actually know who was driving at the time

- PCN has been sent to the RK

-ANPR technology used, no pictures have been sent to me to prove this of my vehicle/driver however


I have now received "Claim Form" which, unlike previous threads where CEL send a "backdated PoC is sent later on" - this one seems to have the PoC detailed on the Claim Form from CEL

Pictures attached via dropbox [/COLOR](pls could someone make the link clickable, thanks! )

dropbox.com/sh/pit7138qyksgd6u/AAA5Ray8kDTxvZs4YC9IIE7va?dl=0

I understand I need to sort MCOL & acknowledge service - my key question is

do i need to submit a defence here now? or do I have time once I've acknowledged this online? as I presume my case differs from what I've read where they have time to WAIT FOR PoC to come through... I've already got PoC on this Claim Form

Any indication of timeframe, next steps etc would be massively helpful!

- In particular: do I need to post these forms back (guidance on how to fill would be useful, do I leave the Defence box blank?)

- I recall reading somewhere about emailing defence, is this in ADDITION to posting this form back, or is it a replacement?


Thank you in advance, you guys already know you're heroes so I'm not going to drop a soppy paragraph of love. Just know that you're highly appreciated in a world filled with self-interested people. :A

KeithP

All the guidance you are looking for - when do I submit a defence? do I do it via MCOL? etc - are clearly detailed in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

In particular, read Bargepole's walkthrough about what you need to do and when.

It really would've been best for you to continue on your existing thread. You may well find someone make this point more forcefully.

Le_Kirk

Here are your pictures: -

https://dropbox.com/sh/pit7138qyksgd6u/AAA5Ray8kDTxvZs4YC9IIE7va?dl=0

Following on from what KeithP has said, just send a PM to Crabman, Savvy or Soolin and ask them to merge the threads, it makes easier reading and responding.

System

This won't see a hearing as it is one of their mass produced "padded" ones but you'll have to do the work (cut n'paste) anyway.

Search for one of the many CEL claims and pick one that suits - and cut n'paste away.

denchgang9

KeithP - thanks for the above.

Having read the Newbies thread and following the step-by-step guidance prior to starting this thread, my questions were actually as follows:

1. It now seems CEL include the PoC in the initial Claim Form, unlike the Newbie guide has advised on (where previously CEL say "PoC to follow", thus buying the Defendant extra time to prepare defence).

- On this basis, do I now need to submit my defence as an attachment to the claim form immediately? (see Claim Form on dropbox link above, thank you le_kirk!)

2. Assuming the answer to question #1 is I need to acknowledge services via MCOL, would you advise I hang back a few days (as it seems I get 14 days to AOS and an additional 14 days once I have AOS...) = more time to prepare? If I'm not mistaken.

Apologies for starting a new thread, just thought it sensible (my rationale behind this was the subject heading was misleading and outdated given the new circumstances.)


Subject to the above, my DRAFT DEFENCE would be as follows:

IN THE MIDDLESBROUGH TEESIDE COMBINED COURT !!!8211; COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxx

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
(CLAIMANT)
-AND-

xxx
(DEFENDANT)

DEFENCE

---

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.

Preliminary

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the XX March 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; (Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative)!!!8221;.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. As an example as to why this 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.

a. There was no compliant !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221;, under the Practice Direction.

b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of !!!8220;draft particulars!!!8221;. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

d. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about !!!8211; why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

i. !!!8220;Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided!!!8221;.

e. The Defence 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

f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars with Practice Directions and include at least the following information:

i. 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
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

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

Keeper Liability

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8220;keeper liability!!!8221; provisions.

a. In order to invoke keeper liability, PoFA 2012 states that:
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(4)The notice must be given by!!!8212;
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
In this case the parking event occurred on March 7th 2016 and the notice to keeper was served on April 5th 2016, which is well outside the 14 day period allowed by the Act in order to invoke keeper liability. As the claimant has not provided any evidence of who was driving and cannot hold the keeper liable, the court is invited to use its discretionary case management powers to strike out the claim on this basis alone.

b. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; and !!!8220;relevant contract!!!8221;, fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 !!!8220;legal representative!!!8217;s costs were incurred.!!!8221;

Signage

5. 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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8220;contract!!!8221;, none of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case is this applicable in my case,
I'm unaware of whether the driver of this vehicle could see any adequate/illegible signage, having revisited the site recently, they may well have changed the signs since the "incident" in December 2016...

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs

b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant

c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as !!!8220;compensation!!!8221; from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d. BPA CoP breaches !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract

No Standing

7. No standing !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

a. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner. is this generally applicable to all CEL claims or is this one I should leave out?

8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of 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.

10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car nearly 15 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

!!!8226; Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XX March 2018.
!!!8226; Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste !!!8220;Particulars!!!8221; of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis/Vine v Waltham Forest) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

In addition to the conduct regarding the lack of good service of the claim, the purported cause of action was meritless and misconceived. Given the fact that this Claimant does not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, and cannot claim 'keeper liability' under that law due to the wording of its notice, the action of pursuing a registered keeper with no evidence as to who was driving on the material date, is vexatious and wholly unreasonable. From the outset, this Claimant's claim was without merit and had no prospects of success.

Should the claim continue to trial, the Defendant submits that, for any or all of the reasons stated above, the Claimant is not entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all, and invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.



xxx
XX March 2018

KeithP

denchgang9 wrote: »

- On this basis, do I now need to submit my defence as an attachment to the claim form immediately?

No. Definitely not.

Again, please read Bargepole's walkthrough I mentioned above.

For clarity, you Acknowledge Service anytime within the first 14 days.
You then have thirty three days from the date of the issue of the claim form to email your defence to the ccbcaq address widely available.

denchgang9 wrote: »

Apologies for starting a new thread, just thought it sensible (my rationale behind this was the subject heading was misleading and outdated given the new circumstances.)

Thread title can be edited at any time by the person who started a thread.

denchgang9

KeithP wrote: »

For clarity, you Acknowledge Service anytime within the first 14 days.
You then have thirty three days from the date of the issue of the claim form

Great - thanks for this, I thought the timer starts ticking from the moment I Acknowledge Service so was just gauging whether waiting a few days would technically buy me more time.

So I will Acknowledge Service this weekend and perfect my defence draft, after re-reading Baregpole's advice.

Any guidance on the red-text in my Draft Defence above would be appreciated, I'd like to think I'm on the right track here?!

Thanks guys :beer:

nosferatu1001

No, and you could have foudn that out yourself by reading the newbies thread, post 2. If you have a question check there FIRST then come here. Hell yo ucan also google the rules yourself, to be sure - theyre easily found!

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73943093#Comment_73943093

Dunno about anyone else but I never want to see that section in a draft defence again, how does it keep wheedling its way into almost every draft, despite us saying to remove it?

Might be in an example defence link in the NEWBIES thread I guess? If so I will remove it.

denchgang9

Hello, draft defence below.

I've tweaked it slightly and removed any waffle, eg double-mentioning Greenslade etc

Is this fine to submit?

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 13 March 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; as the Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this 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.

a. There was no compliant !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221;, under the Practice Direction.

b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of !!!8220;draft particulars!!!8221;. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

d. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about !!!8211; why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

i. !!!8220;Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8221;

e. The Defence 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

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;POFA 2012!!!8221;). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions:

The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8221; which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.

Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. !!!8221;Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and !!!8216;relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £333.81 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 !!!8220;legal representative!!!8217;s costs were incurred.!!!8221; The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £333.81 If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

5. 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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8220;contract!!!8221;, none of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs

b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant

c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as !!!8220;compensation!!!8221; from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
v. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d. BPA CoP breaches !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract

7. No standing !!!8211; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner. is this applicable to all CEL defences? just checking as it's a cut n'paste, if this is applicable to my situation?

8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of 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.

10. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid

11. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car 15 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 13 March 2018.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.



xxx
XX March 2018