CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD have filed a CCJ

parkingadvice23

which section is it best to mention other drivers ? Section 3? During 2016 I had at least 5 people with regular access and permission to use my car. All of which with their own fully comprehensive insurance. 3 family members and various colleagues. How is it best to list this?

Coupon-mad

Put it in the section about the fact this Claimant does not use the provisions in the POFA Schedule 4, and cannot invoke any right to hold a registered keeper liable, nor is there any presumption in law that allows a parking firm to assume that a keeper was the driver, in the absence of evidence.

parkingadvice23

Ok brilliant, So here is the defence. Any last minute feedback greatly appreciated. I truly can't thank everyone enough. I need to file this week so is it best to post to the claimant by signed for post?;

---

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons;

1 - 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. The defendant’s mother, father, sister and colleagues had access and permission to this vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. This Claimant does not use the provisions in the POFA Schedule 4, and cannot invoke any right to hold a registered keeper liable, nor is there any presumption in law that allows a parking firm to assume that a keeper was the driver, in the absence of evidence.

2 - The Defendant put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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 the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.

3 - The Defendant has not seen so much as a Claim Form, nor any paperwork, nor even a location or date of the alleged contravention, nor any photographs of the signs from the Claimant. As such, the Defendant has found it impossible to make informed decisions and statements as keeper of the car, about the alleged contractual breach.

3.1. However, the Defendant avers that no driver of that vehicle would have flouted prominent signage and puts the Claimant to strict proof (not stock photos, contemporaneous proof) that clear and large signs, with adequate notice of the parking charge, were in place at this unknown location on the material date.

3.2. The Defendant denies that there was any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' that existed and was communicated clearly to the driver, and denies liability for any sum at all under Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

4 - The Defendant believes the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details.

5 - The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Civil Enforcement Ltd) to be assigned.

6 - The defendant denies being the driver of the alleged parking incident. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper liability has been proven in accordance with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012.

7 - As a consequence of non-compliance with the POFA, a private parking charge can only be recovered from the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver who parked the vehicle on the material date and is reminded that it is trite law, that no lawful presumption can be made that a keeper was the driver. This was confirmed in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report, by Henry Greenslade, a parking law expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator (both of POPLA and previously, PATAS) who confirmed that there is no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver and without the parking firm's full compliance with Schedule 4 of the statute, the keeper cannot be held liable.

The Defendant believes that this Claimant routinely discontinues claims, or opts not to proceed further after any set aside, and as such the Defendant asks the court to consider an order of punitive costs against this vexatious and unreasonable Claimant, due to their conduct. The Defendant has been put to significant trouble and has suffered distress as a result of this matter, and has expended significant costs in attending the hearing and paying court fees to right a wrong that it is believed this Claimant will now seek to walk away from, with no intention of attending a hearing.

The original Draft Order for the set aside requested costs including a fee of £255 and losses for attending the hearings. The defendant now wishes the Court to impose the highest sanction against the Claimant if they do not comply and if they discontinue or opt not to pay the hearing fee within the required time.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

parkingadvice23

I am still awaiting the judges response from the set aside hearing. I have been told by the court verbally when I need to file it by. Should I just go ahead and send it in now? Or should I wait for the judges instructions? I was told at the end of last week they hadn't processed them yet, but I was read them over the phone. I have covered everything in the defence here so feel like it's best not to miss the only deadline i've been given?

nosferatu1001

If you know when it shpould be in, send it in. Dont wait for a letter.

parkingadvice23

Hello All,

I've not received any further correspondence since I filed my defence. What should I do next? How do I find out if it has been removed?