registered keep deceased

fisherjim

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

And they may see this as a dodgy ruse for evading parking charges. It would be one thing to pursue someone who was alive when the charge was issued, but subsequently died, but this is different.

Shouldn't really rock the boat too much. Just think, if someone had picked up a speeding ticket under the same circumstances, the police would not be too chuffed that the RK had been dead 9 months.

Quentin wrote: »

The OP is anxious to preserve the good name of his late father


(Who is totally innocent anyway - this has arisen because the executors failed in their responsibilities over notifying DVLA of the change!)


Don't see how getting this in the papers will help at all!

Exactly, the vehicle details should have been updated asap, the DVLA do allow a grace period but for the vehicle to be still registered in the deceased name nine months later is asking for trouble!

System

Exactly, the vehicle details should have been updated asap, the DVLA do allow a grace period but for the vehicle to be still registered in the deceased name nine months later is asking for trouble!

Immaterial.

Coupon summed it up. CEL can only argue the Keeper it liable - taken as the RK unless proven otherwise. AFAIK a death certificate would be pretty strong evidence of not being the keeper on the date.

Then there is the presumption of the [Registered] Keeper being the driver - Elliott v Loake - but that will get nowhere.

The only chance that CEL has is if the Executor messes up the paperwork which is the usual way of PPC's winning so the OP just has to follow the process set out in the Newbies thread.

No template required.....

Coupon-mad

The op has no need to worry though; I wouldn't want to put them off coming back.

eeebygum1528

Thanks for the replies above and the issue of the V5 was sorted some time ago.

I have drafted a defence which i would value input on. Main lines of defence are
1. Defendant is deceased. (but if it carries on)
2. Defect in ticket machine as fee was paid
3 NTK not sent and keeper not liable
4. Usual evidence of permissions for actions from landowners
5. Inflated debt /damages claimed.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)



DEFENCE



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

2. It is brought to the courts attention that the Defendant named in this claim is deceased and that the Claimant has been made aware of this fact both in writing and by provision of a copy of the relevant Death Certificate.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and that a parking charge was purchased and correctly displayed within the vehicle at the relevant time.

4. The Claim relates to an alleged debt and damages arising from a driver’s alleged breach of contract when parking at XXXXXX car park on 03/10/2016.

5. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper “parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant”

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show evidence of the car park layout by means of date stamped photographs as this car park is no longer in existence in the same format and has been the subject of building work for a period of time. It is alleged the signing in the carpark provided no guidance on the use of the ticket machine that was in a legible or cogent format and as such a person would be unaware of any processes to correct any error caused by machine defects.

7. At the time of the alleged breach of terms, payment was made via an automated ticket machine. The car park had 2 such machines and they were regularly out of service. The payment was made and the use of the keyboard to input details was hampered by a faulty mechanism in that some letters and numbers were worn and there was no working facility to correct any error in information input. The correct payment was made and the ticket produced showed an additional character input by means of duplicating the number “6”. The visual display was scratched and unlit and was placed at a low height making it difficult to see any display when using the machine as such the duplicated number was not seen at the time of purchase. The ticket produced was displayed within the vehicle displaying the correct fee payment.

8. The first notice of any defect in the machine was when a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was posted to the listed Defendant more than 22 days after the alleged incident. The Claimant was informed of the data processing/storage error, as soon as the automatic PCN arrived.

9. The claimant is put to strict proof to show a maintenance schedule for the ticket machines which should include the number of times the machine was defective, the length of time the machine was defective and the fault at issue.

10. At no time did the Claimant issue a windscreen PCN nor did they issue a Notice To Keeper (NTK) at any stage. Notwithstanding the listed Defendant is deceased it is asserted the Claimant has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and no keeper liability is possible.

11. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by claiming £236.00 under the guise of “Debt + damages” which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. The Particulars of Claim (POC) show no damages caused during the alleged incident.

12. Whilst a reasonable sum may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house costs cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) in this case £100. In the Beavis case, ParkingEye were only able to seek the only stated 'parking charge' sum on their NTK, since there was no quantifiable tariff.

14. It is not accepted that the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper (and for this they are put to strict proof) and nor is it accepted that £100 can be claimed instead of £1.00, the fee paid in this case, but either way, the additional sum claimed, appears to be a disingenuous attempt at excessive recovery.

15. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons of the parking area.

16. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

eeebygum1528

Hi,
When you register a death and use the report once format DVLA are notified straight away.. This was done within 5 days of my father passing away so DVLA were aware but obviously do not collate their records very well.

beamerguy

eeebygum1528 wrote: »

Hi,
When you register a death and use the report once format DVLA are notified straight away.. This was done within 5 days of my father passing away so DVLA were aware but obviously do not collate their records very well.

Did you see the daily mail article

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74899035#Comment_74899035

The editor wants to hear about these horror stories

editor@thisismoney.co.uk

eeebygum1528

I have thanks, waiting to see if they retract first.

Fruitcake

I know this must be distressing for you, but I don't see how you can create a defence for a deceased person.

If you have told the scammers that, your father is deceased and the DVLA was informed 5 days later, here is the proof of both, then there is nothing more you can or should do in my opinion.

If the scammers try to proceed, then you tell the court the same thing.

beamerguy

Fruitcake wrote: »

I know this must be distressing for you, but I don't see how you can create a defence for a deceased person.

If you have told the scammers that, your father is deceased and the DVLA was informed 5 days later, here is the proof of both, then there is nothing more you can or should do in my opinion.

If the scammers try to proceed, then you tell the court the same thing.

Trouble is the scammers CEL are so thick, they have no idea
about this next court whooping

eeebygum1528

Fruitcake wrote: »

I know this must be distressing for you, but I don't see how you can create a defence for a deceased person.

If you have told the scammers that, your father is deceased and the DVLA was informed 5 days later, here is the proof of both, then there is nothing more you can or should do in my opinion.

If the scammers try to proceed, then you tell the court the same thing.

I am hopeful the matter is dismissed but as i understand it if i do not follow procedure and enter a defence the matter would be found against. So better to be prepared.