LBC! Taking me to court - PCM

savingeveryday123

Hey guys, I have put together my response for Gladstones' LBC. Mainly used the body of the link about the Elliot v Loake case. Would you approve?

Dear ….

This is a response to the Letter Before Claim, reference ‘......’. When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, they assumed I was the driver of the vehicle. In the appeal to your client, I stated clearly, I am solely the keeper of the vehicle and deny any liability.

Your client then responded using the case of Elliot V Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver.
This is an incorrect representation of the case for the following reasons:
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he was the driver, and not, as you incorrectly state, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well-known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
You are also reminded you of the general principle that the claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.
As I deny any liability to this claim. I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings.
…..
…

savingeveryday123

Is this also something I could add? Sorry will try keep to one post in future.

P.S due to the manor in which your client has used my details once pointed out that I was not the driver has been distressing and a counterclaim made for breach of the Data Protection Authorities will be considered.

KeithP

In your last paragraph, I think you need to make it clear that the reason you are 'unable to respond properly to the alleged claim' is due to their failing, not your 'inability'.

savingeveryday123

I have updated my response to the LBC. Read it through a million times. Please let me know if it makes sense and you understand it also as I think I'm going mad! LoL thanks

To whom it may concern,
This is a response to the Letter Before Claim, reference ‘.....’. When your client first contacted me, they assumed I was the driver of the vehicle. In the appeal to your client, I stated clearly, I am solely the keeper of the vehicle and deny any liability.
Your client then responded using the case of Elliot V Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver.
This is an incorrect representation of the case for the following reasons:
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he was the driver, and not, as you incorrectly state, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well-known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
You are also reminded of the general principle that the claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.
As I deny any liability to this claim. I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim due to your client’s failing of locating the driver of the vehicle, and to consider my position in relation to it. As you are well aware, this criminal case has NOTHING to do with parking notices. Your client’s inclusion of it therefore can only be to intimidate and misinform. If this goes to court, you will be wasting court time and behaving unreasonably
P.S Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Therefore, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20), Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information, yet your client has yet to provide it.
Kind Regards

Thanks guys!