Qdr court claim received help!!!

Lawabiding_2

Thank you Keith P.

Fyi aos done on 18 September.


Look forward to comments on my defence

Coupon-mad

Bumping it for others to comment at a decent hour of the morning!

Lawabiding wrote: »

Hi Everyone


Here is my draft defence for your very kind comments and consideration.

I must point out that on the day in question I am aware that parking was paid and therefore I cannot ascertain why the charge was issued.

I do not know if they are alleging it was due to an overstay or that no payment was made at all. the reason given on the claim is that parking was not paid. WHICH IS INCORRECT!

On the day in question me and other was on way back to car, the kids needed to go toilet (they were both under 6 at the time), went to nearest toilets which were closed in shopping centre and then were directed to the bus station toilets which were further up. The kids got to the toilets on time and then we then made our way back to the car.

As far as I am aware we were fine with parking and did not think anything of it.




the car was cleaned out a week before the PCN came through so have nothing!


I have not told them the above as I just don't know why the charge was issued. if they came back saying there was a over stay, I would have put forward the above mitigating circumstances. if there was an overstay I don't know by how much but could not have been any more than 20mins.
I would appreciate your thoughts.


thank you very much


DEFENCE

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 14 September 2018 by BCM 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 BCM ltd but has been signed by the Claimants 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) in that further information and clarification was requested from the Claimant’s solicitors and adequate time provided for that information to be supplied as to the alleged charge and this has not been provided for the defendant’s consideration prior to the issue of court proceedings.
3. There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.

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

5. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and does not divulge sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea why the charge arose when parking was paid. This cannot be considered to be a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the Letter before County Court Claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock, 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. 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.


6. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions:

In accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 9 (5) 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 Parking Charge Notice which was sent outside of the 14 day period. The PCN was deemed to have been received by the keeper on 17th August 2017 and the alleged event being 23 July 2017. 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; However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. 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 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 £235.00 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

Furthermore the BCP ltd is a trade member of ICP and agreed to abide by their terms. Their code of practice for trade members sets out at PART C, 5.1 (m) that the car operator can only enforce a parking charge against the keeper if it has been served on them within 14 days of the alleged event. They have obtained the Defendant’s details from DVLA due to be a trade member of ICP however they have failed to abide their code of practice and thus have misused the defendant’s data and have unnecessarily and viciously pursued the defendant.
7. 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 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that BPM 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. 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.

8. 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 contract, none of this applies in this material case. The Car park in question was is a pay and display car park and thus it is not clear how the Claimant can assert that firstly, parking was not paid and secondly that the keeper is liable for the said charge issued.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. It is believed BPM 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. If it is alleged that they do have a contract, I cannot see how this is possible as they are registered as not trading.


13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 14 September 2018.
b) failed to provide clarification or further information as requested during the pre-court proceeding process (letter before action).
c) failed to negotiate matters via ADR therefore issuing unnecessary court proceedings and alleging that the defendant is liable for the sum now at £235.00 which could have been avoided by the Claimants had they acted reasonably.

(d) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim 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 given it is a pay and display car parking and it is unclear therefore as to what and why the claim actually relates to. 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
Dated…………………

System

AFAIK this is the template that loses quite often as it doesn't actually answer the particulars. It is just a very, very long incorrect moan. It should have a health warning on it.

Where does it say the OP was not the driver as claimed in #1?

Lawabiding_2

Omg! I can't believe I missed that out. Thank you. I will 're draft and post again

System

If you are going to redraft take out the nonsense too such as 3, 4, trim 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and the summary. Lots of this template is repetition so cull it.

Lawabiding_2

Hi Everyone


Very Sorry about the delay in putting up an amended defence - see below please.
I don't know how to upload images so i have typed out the particulars of claim received;
PARTICULARS
claimants claim if for outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle...the site is managed by the claimant. The defendant is the keeper of or driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 of the vehicle. vehicles parking at the site are subject to parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the site and form part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the claimant. on 23 july 2017 the vehicle was parked at the site in breach of the contract, the contravention being ANPR failure to pay for parking. by entering this contract the defendant agreed that they would be liable for £100 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.


DEFENCE

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 14 September 2018 by BCM 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 BCM ltd but has been signed by the Claimants 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) in that further information and clarification was requested from the Claimant’s solicitors and adequate time provided for that information to be supplied as to the alleged charge and this has not been provided for the defendant’s consideration prior to the issue of court proceedings.

3. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and does not divulge sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea why the charge arose when to her recollection parking was paid. This cannot be considered to be a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the Letter before County Court Claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock, 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. 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 (ADR)

iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another and

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


4. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions:

In accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 9 (5) 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 Parking Charge Notice which was sent outside of the 14 day period. The PCN was deemed to have been received by the keeper on 17th August 2017 and the alleged event being 23 July 2017. 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; However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. 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 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 £235.00 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

Furthermore the BCP ltd is a trade member of ICP and agreed to abide by their Code of Practice which would enable them to obtain the keeper’s details from DVLA. In accordance with their code of practice for trade members as sets out at PART C, 5.1 (m) the car operator can only enforce a parking charge against the keeper if the notice to keeper has been served on them within 14 days of the alleged event. It is therefore argued that the Claimant has used their membership to obtain the keeper’s details however have failed to abide by the terms set out in this code of practice which sets out the ground rules for the use of such data. It is argued that this has led to the unnecessary and vicious perusal of the defendant.
7. 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 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that BPM 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. 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.

8. 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 contract, none of this applies in this material case. The Car park in question was is a pay and display car park and thus it is not clear how the Claimant can assert that firstly, parking was not paid and secondly that the keeper is liable for the said charge issued.

9. In the absence of any proof identifying the driver it is unclear how the Claimant can assert that the Defendant is contractually bound. As there is no contract, the Claimant has no case

12. It is believed BPM 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. If it is alleged that they do have a contract, I cannot see how this is possible as they are registered as not trading.

13. 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.
14. 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 14 months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver.

14. 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 cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 14 September 2018.
b) failed to provide clarification or further information as requested during the pre-court proceeding process (letter before claim)
c) failed to negotiate matters thereby resulting in unnecessary court proceedings and alleging that the defendant is liable for the sum now at £235.00 which could have been avoided by the Claimants had they acted reasonably.

(d) Sent limited 'Particulars' of claim which relies on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 with no evidence of contravention.
(e) Failed to satisfy Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 section 9 (5) and thus keeper liability does not apply and the defendant cannot be held liable in law.
(f) Failed to abide by PART C 5.1 (m) of The Code of Practice of ICP and misused the keeper’s data.

Due to the aforementioned 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
Dated…………………

Coupon-mad

No paper hearing, no offer, no stress! You can defend this one and win.

I have been advised to opt for paper hearing but have read posts not to.

The costs now pursued are
Charge 100
Admin 60
Court fee 25
Legal rep costs 50
Total 235

I was thinking of offering them a without prejudice offer as I'm really fed up with the stress.

I don't know how to upload images so i have typed out the particulars of claim received:

claimants claim is for outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle...the site is managed by the claimant. The defendant is the keeper of or driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 of the vehicle.

vehicles parking at the site are subject to parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the site and form part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the claimant. on 23 july 2017 the vehicle was parked at the site in breach of the contract, the contravention being ANPR failure to pay for parking. by entering this contract the defendant agreed that they would be liable for £100 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

As long as you are telling the truth that you were not the driver (never lie to a court), then add the details like the claim number and the number of insured drivers (ONLY use that sentence of there was more than one!) I'd go with something like this:



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

BANK PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxx xxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________

DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but was not the driver on the material date. The vehicle was insured with x named drivers permitted to use it, and it is not known which driver the Claimant alleges parked the car and entered into their alleged contract. However the Defendant avers that parking was paid for, and thus, no contravention occurred.

2.1. The claim was issued prematurely, given the requirements of the Practice Direction and the (October 2017) pre-action protocol for debt claims, as well as statutory consumer rights under the DPA and GDPR for a data subject to receive a timely reply to a Subject Access Request (SAR).

2.1.1. Given the Defendant's certain belief that payment of the parking tariff was made, the Defendant responded to the non-compliant 'Letter before Claim' to clarify the evidence of any breach. In the interests of resolving the dispute and to make an informed decision without any need for court proceedings, the Defendant requested the data and information the Claimant would rely upon.

2.1.2. Such a request for data and information must be considered a SAR, but the Claimant failed to answer at all and moved straight to this premature claim with no regard for the data subject's rights under the GDPR, nor for the 'overriding objectives' within the Civil Procedure Rules.

3. The Claim Form Particulars are extremely sparse and do not divulge sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea why the charge arose when to her recollection parking was paid. This cannot be considered to be a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars - and previous letters - simply demanded an unwarranted sum of money and failed to show the registered keeper Defendant evidence of contravention or photographs.

3.1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant 'is the keeper of or driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 of the vehicle'. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices as to how they might hold any motorist liable.

3.1.1. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached except a vague and nonsensical sentence: 'the contravention being ANPR failure to pay for parking'.

4. The Particulars are so sparse and embarrassing, that the Defendant is immediately disadvantaged when attempting to make informed decisions when drafting this defence.

4.1. Notwithstanding the above, it is denied that the Defendant was the driver, and further, it is denied that the unevidenced driver committed a contravention or breach of terms on a sign, regardless of whatever is meant by: 'ANPR failure to pay for parking'.

4.2. It is further denied that 'by entering this contract the defendant agreed that they would be liable for £100 parking charges', given the fact that the Defendant was not that driver and did not enter into any contract.

4.3. The Defendant also denies that the Claimant actually incurred 'additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions', given the fact that no debt was collected, and the service offered to parking firms by ZZPS and QDR solicitors, when merely sending debt chaser template letters, is free.

4.3.1. This is an attempt at double recovery and is a gross abuse of process. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its expenditure of 'additional contractual charges...for collection of the debt' and that this was stated on prominent signage.

4.3.2. The Claimant must also explain why the claim describes the added sums differently elsewhere in the claim form, this time describing it as 'Admin 60, Legal rep costs 50', neither of which are recoverable in the small claims track. As was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in the Supreme Court decision, private parking 'charges' are already significantly inflated to many times the minor cost of running a template letter parking regime, and the £85 in Beavis more than covered any costs and it was held that a sum in damages or loss could not have been pursued.

5. In any event, the Claimant is in difficulty regarding the unconscionable sum stated on the claim form, given that the maximum sum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) is the sum on a fully compliant 'Notice to Keeper' ('NTK'). Double recovery being expressly disallowed.

6. The Claimant has failed to meet the mandatory NTK wording and deadline rules set out in the POFA. Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and the wording was not compliant with the statute. The first letter was deemed to have been received by the keeper on 17th August 2017 and the date of the alleged event was 23 July 2017.

7. This case can be distinguished from Beavis, a 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 Trade Body Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the admitted driver, who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free.

7.1. None of this applies in this material case. The car park in question uses Pay and Display Tickets (PDT) and thus it is not clear how the Claimant can assert that firstly, parking was not paid and secondly that the keeper is liable for the alleged conduct of an individual driver, outwith the only applicable statute for 'keeper liability'.

7.2. In the expectation that the Claimant may try to suggest it, the Defendant avers that the law of agency is not applicable when a registered keeper is an individual and the driver was not acting 'on behalf of' the Defendant. The fact is, since 2012, parking firms are not left without a remedy in cases where they do not know who was driving; this is precisely why the POFA was enacted, and it is unclear why an International Parking Community AOS member firm would not use nor rely upon the simple provisions within that Act.

8. In the alternative, this Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that whilst operating as a contractor on an agency basis, it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner, not only to put some signs up and to issue parking charge notices, but also to litigate in their own name.

9. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that people standing at the PDT machine would not see any contract except a small tariff, which the Claimant has not shown was unpaid.

10. In the absence of any proof identifying the driver or any breach, it is unclear how the Claimant can assert that the Defendant (a stranger to any parking contract that day) is contractually bound. As there is no contract, no 'relevant obligation', no contravention and no keeper liability, the Claimant has no cause of action.

11. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

12. Given that the claim will turn on the lack of any 'keeper liability' (see #6 above for that fact), should the Judge decide against an Order to strike the claim out without a hearing, then it is suggested that a Preliminary Hearing to examine the core issue of 'keeper liability' would save burdening the court with a claim that has no merit and is in all respects, an abuse of process.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.


Signed xxxxxxxxx

Dated…………………

Coupon-mad

If you were the driver, you must go and remove all such denials in that draft.

Lawabiding_2

Thank you very much Coupon mad. I am very grateful.

I understand the consequences of lying and thus what I am saying is true. Me and my husband are insured to drive. I seriously cannot keep track who drives when etc and therefore it is on that basis I have said I am not the driver. I am content with saying there are two named drivers me and my husband but do not wish to name him. I don't want them to then come back and say ' well your so confident it's not you must then be your husband.

I haven't put in the whole issue about finding toilets for the kids purely because they are not alleging an overstay.

I wonder if they will withdraw before any court hearing.

System

I seriously cannot keep track who drives when etc and therefore it is on that basis I have said I am not the driver.

There is a difference between saying you were not the driver based on fact e.g. receipt to prove you were elsewhere, and "not the driver" based on a belief. You should change your statement to having a reasonable belief on the balance of probabilities that you were not driving at the time as, for example, you would have been looking after your children at that time of day.

Denial requires facts and evidence. Disputing you were the driver needs only a reasonable belief coupled with getting the Claimant to prove any assertion you were driving.,