Next steps...

BrownTrout

what does next steps mean....?

nosferatu1001

What did ther ICO order them to do?
Does it have any bearing on their ability to issue a claim against you? Given the answer is going to be "no", why not follow the newbies thread but add on something to them about their / their clients breach of the ICOs order of Y date?

another_mac

ICO orders them to respond to the keepers request within 14 days, which they failed to do, as when they did respond to the keeper - it was twice that timeline. 

Following The LBC step is to request the same as the keeper has done before, therefore repeating - however the keeper can add the additional information. 

another_mac

Time has flown by and now another update…  a claim form from the county court has arrived. With all that has happened is it suitable to challenge? 

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

another_mac

9th August, an AOS has been raised as of 25 min ago

Le_Kirk

another_mac said:

Time has flown by and now another update…  a claim form from the county court has arrived. With all that has happened is it suitable to challenge? 

You cannot "challenge" an N1 claim form from CCBC, you now deal with it as per the NEWBIE sticky and you have completed the first step, the AoS.  Now to write your defence - see the template defence it is one of the first five announcements in the first page of the forum.

KeithP

another_mac said:

9th August, an AOS has been raised as of 25 min ago

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th September 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

another_mac

How is this for a sample?

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is denied that the defendant was the driver at the time in question. There is one other named driver on the vehicle insurance. The claimant is put to strict proof that the defendant was the driver on the day of the alleged contravention.

3. The defendant was first made aware of the parking charge when they were to move the vehicle. The vehicle was parked within the residential grounds and as a property owner at the time of XXXXXXX the defendant denies accepting any contracts with this third party. 

3.1 At the time of the alleged contravention, the vehicle was unable to vacate the location prior to the parking charge being applied due to restrictions on the road by two removal vans which were restricting the exit path of the vehicle

3.2 On the receiving the parking charge, the defendant appealed the charge as the keeper, stating that the alleged charge was null and void as the documentation stated the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines, which was incorrect, in addition to the situation that led to the alleged contravention, however this was rejected.

3.3 Due to the fact that the claim made by the claimant was untrue, no efforts to respond to the letter were made. A number of follow up and threatening letters were received and the defendant felt harassed by this bombardment.

3.4  The claimant did not respond to any correspondence from the defendant in a timely manner. Requests of the defendant to fulfil Subject Access Request (SAR) on the 4th Jan 2020 did not meet the expected 30 day respond time. A response was received on the 30th August 2020. This was also raised with the Informations Commissioner’s Office on the 18th of July 2020. The defendant felt harassed, and the claimants actions caused unnecessary stress in unprecedented times.

3.5 The claimant failed to understand the defendants position and therefore did not follow the Practice Direction on Pre Action Protocol 

3.6 The keeper cannot be held liable because the claimant is unable to rely upon the POFA 2012 schedule 4 in the NTK, and it is not relevant land under the POFA 2012 schedule 4 Para 3,1c.

Le_Kirk

You have two lots of harassment, which is repetition.  Besides it probably isn't harassment in law, a judge would say they were just doing their job.  It isn't a defence point, likewise the lack of response to a SAR.  Keep those items for the witness statement and keep the defence limited to technical/legal arguments.  Your best points are lack of keeper liability (if they failed POFA), not parked on yellow lines and, in fact, not parked at all as you were waiting for the road to clear, something that the parking company failed to do - they are, after all, supposed to be managing the parking area not just issuing speculative invoices and collecting money!