PCM ticket in February 2018/Gladstone Solicitor

Le_Kirk

7. Should the Court not decide to strike the case out as having no prospects of success against a non-driver/non-keeper resident, Can the Judge order the Claimant to:

I would change it slightly to reflect what C-m advised you: -

7. Should the Court not decide to strike the case out as having no prospects of success against a non-driver/non-keeper resident, the defendant requests that the Judge order the Claimant to:

Otherwise, as you have been advised by C-m and changed your defence accordingly and subject to her not coming back with any other modifications, I would go with it.

Daintai

Le_Kirk

That is the modification version,after C-m feedback, however im not sure if it sounds a bit repetitive though.

Daintai

Hi Redx

Could you be a bit more specific as to where you are talking exactly? I willgo over also for spelling errors. Thank you

Umkomaas

7. Should the Court not decide to strike the case out as having no prospects of success against a non-driver/non-keeper resident, Can the Judge order the Claimant to:

A bit clumsy. Better might be:

‘....... it is requested that the Judge .....’ or, ‘....... the Defendant asks the Judge to ......’

Le_Kirk

Daintai wrote: »

That is the modification version,after C-m feedback, however im not sure if it sounds a bit repetitive though.

Where is the repetition? C-m advised you to add in point 7, which you have done and all I am suggesting is that you MODIFY it slightly from "Can the judge order..." to "the defendant requests that the judge......" NOT repetition but CHANGING

Daintai

Redx,

Please give a look at the review as suggested below.

The County Court
Claim No: xxxxxx
Between
PCM Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mrs Dain (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was not the registered keeper or driver of vehicle on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a resident at the premises and has continued to hold a valid parking permit for car park for the last 8 years, however the defendant was not present in the UK at the time of incident.
3. The Defendant believe that no contravention occurred, and as a resident the Defendant is aware that the signs are sparse and unlit and incapable of forming any contract with a visiting driver especially if they have a valid visitors’ permit.
4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charges, unless specifically authorised by the Housing Association L&…. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £160 debt. Since the Defendant is neither the registered keeper nor driver nor the hirer of the car. The Defendant knows that the Right of Rectification Data subjects entitle her to ask a controller to rectify any errors in their personal data. Rec.39 59,65 73; Art.5(1)(d),16.
7. Should the Court not decide to strike the case out as having no prospects of success against a non-driver/non-keeper resident, the Defendant asks that the judge order the Claimant to:

(a) reply to the defence, explaining how they are holding me liable, and/or
(b) attend - with the defendant, at her local court - a short preliminary hearing to dismiss the claim if the claimant cannot show the above, and no other aspects of the case will need any scrutiny. With the defendant awarded her costs when the claim fails.

8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the Defendant would kindly ask for a Judge to strike the claim out given that the Defendant is not the driver nor the registered keeper.
Residents of estates cannot be held personally liable for the actions of a driver on private land, not even if they appeal and/or hold a permit. They are still not the liable party in law.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

T Dain


2. March 20..

Redx

point 6 should have ed after register , thats just one spelling error (it does say registered earlier in the defence) - be consistent

Umkomaas

and I would kindly ask for a Judge

The defence should be written in the third person, so change ‘I’ to ‘the Defendant’.

Daintai

Hi Have made the last adjustment and edited after all the feedbacks. Is ok to keep Defendant as defendant throughout? Does it matter much? see below

The County Court
Claim No: xxxxxx
Between
PCM Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mrs Dain (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was not the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a resident at the premises and has continued to hold a valid parking permit for the car park for the last 8 years, however the Defendant was not present in the UK at the time of incident.
3. The Defendant believes that no contravention occurred, and as a resident the Defendant is aware that the signs are sparse and unlit and incapable of forming any contract with a visiting driver especially if they have a valid visitors’ permit.
4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charges, unless specifically authorised by the Housing Association L&…. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £160 debt. Since the Defendant is neither the registered keeper nor driver nor the hirer of the car. The Defendant knows that the Right of Rectification Data subjects entitle the Defendant to ask a controller to rectify any errors in their personal data. Rec.39 59,65 73; Art.5(1)(d),16.
7. Should the Court not decide to strike the case out as having no prospects of success against a non-driver/non-keeper resident, the Defendant asks that the judge order the Claimant to:

(a) reply to the defence, explaining how they are holding the Defendant liable, and/or
(b) attend - with the Defendant, at the Defendant local court - a short preliminary hearing to dismiss the claim if the claimant cannot show the above, and no other aspects of the case will need any scrutiny. With the Defendant awarded her costs when the claim fails.

8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the Defendant asks for a Judge to strike the claim out given that the Defendant is not the driver nor the registered keeper.
Residents of estates cannot be held personally liable for the actions of a driver on private land, not even if they appeal and/or hold a permit. They are still not the liable party in law.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

T Dain


2. March 20..

Umkomaas

and I would kindly ask for a Judge

So you’ve decided to ignore the advice I gave?

It’s your defence, you choose.....