PCM ticket in February 2018/Gladstone Solicitor

Redx

Daintai wrote: »

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 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 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..

some changes and spelling mistakes and identity altered above, including deleting the odd word

see what you think

Daintai

I will make those adjustment now.

Daintai

So it would be safe to save this as a PDF sign and scan then upload on the email I noted earlier. I am 4 hours ahead of the UK. Would it be safe to send this first thing in the morning? my time. 7AM UK time.

Redx

yes , that is correct, attach it to the email and send to the CCBCAQ email address KeithP gace you , following his instructions exactly

Coupon-mad

Yes that should be fine.

I see what you mean about defending a case that's about the actions of another person for whom you can't be liable, but I think you need to cover the bases. Your defence says what it needs to say and I would expect that PCM will discontinue the claim in the end, shortly before any hearing, when they realise you are not the keeper or driver.

Daintai

Ok,

Thanks a lot. We got there in the end. You guys are awesome...

Umkomaas

Umkomaas wrote: »

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

It’s your defence, you choose.....

Daintai wrote: »

HI Umkomaas…

I think you are looking at the previous one. I Changed it to what you suggested.

Nope, because I copied the quote from your post #80, timed at 6:22pm which you edited at 7:09pm - after I drew your attention to the issue in my post #81, timed at 6:36pm.

Please don’t ......

Daintai

Hi Ud-Maas

I meant at home whislt i was talkingto you all at the same time. I never wanted to get confused. But for the purpose of the thread i edited it so i know it was the final draft on here. Thank you and sorry.

Daintai

Hi All,

As Instructed I have checked my MCOL account and Defence was acknowledged as received.

CHEERS again

Daintai

Hi Keith,

As predicted, I have received a email questionnaire from Gladstone stating they request for Special Direction for the matter be considered on paper work without a hearing. Should I agree to this? They have also attached their questionnaire N180 form already complete.

I will also check the FAQ page.

One more question: Would they have access to view my defence letter I sent on monday?