Driver observed leaving site whilst vehicle remained parked on premises

Redx

the defendant is the person they are claiming from, so too late to name the driver, hence why you have found nothing about naming the driver

the defendant can admit that they are the keeper, if they are (ie:- honesty)

if they are NOT the driver, they can state this fact too (honesty again)

any keeper that was the driver should not commit perjury, in which case the defendant can state that the claimant has not proven who the driver was

if the driver HAS been identified, then these issues are irrelevant

Smaru

Thank you,Redx.
In this case the letters are addresed to the defendant as the keeper.They have not identified the driver.

So,in the defence ,what is the approach to be taken? In one of the letetrs to us ,they have quoted Beavis but this seems more like Ibbotson.
Any pointers will be gratefully accepted

Smaru

Dear Forum users,
I still have not found any defence for the 'driver observed leaving the site whilst car remained parked at site' offence ;have diligently gone through most posts. I did find few appeals but not a defence.If anyone knows of any ,please,please can you send me the link?
Thanks you in advance
Sabita

Umkomaas

Read the VCS v Ibbotson case - there will be ideas in there to stimulate your thinking. But be aware that the 'mitigation of loss' no longer flies.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

Smaru

Thank you ,Umkomaas.I am not entirerly sure what you meant by'mitigation loss no longer flies'...sorry about that..grateful if you can shed some light.I read the whole case -16 pages of it, and it is awesome.

Fruitcake

Your defence will centre on the scammers not defining "the site" on their signage, and them proving that "the driver" whoever that was did leave the site.
The Keeper may well have been an occupant of the car.

If the site boundary isn't defined in writing on the signs that form a contract with the motorist, or similarly shown on a map, how would an occupant know whether or not they had left the site?

Put this into your own words and post it here for checking.

Have you complained to your MP yet?

Umkomaas

Smaru wrote: »

Thank you ,Umkomaas.I am not entirerly sure what you meant by'mitigation loss no longer flies'...sorry about that..grateful if you can shed some light.I read the whole case -16 pages of it, and it is awesome.

I just didn't want you reading the 'mitigation of loss' part of the transcript (because it is mentioned quite a bit in it) and then running with it in your defence.

The ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case in 2015 dismissed it as something usable in private parking cases in the future. So read around it in Ibbotson, there's more to go on (as per Fruitcake's advice).

Smaru

Thank you,Fruitcake. I will start writing up something; I have read all the exceelntly written defences here , and am worrying about my ability for legal English writing.You indicate that they have to prove who was the driver:) ;but if the defendant gets asked in court,then is the defendant not obliged to give the information:(?In the Ibbotson case that Umkomaas posted here,the driver had already identified himself.So many questions comes to the mind..sorry !!No,haven't written to my MP yet;was reading up to get this defence out of the way.
Thank you ,Umkomaas, it is very clear now what'mitigation of loss' means.

Smaru

Can I send a SAR letter after the AOS?



I have done my AOS and am in the defence writing stage .As I joined the forum only after receving the Claim, I did not know about the SAR (unfortunately).Wondering if still okay to end the SAR .:o

Umkomaas

Of course you can send the SAR. They have one month to respond, which may not fit with your timescale to file your defence, but it should arrive well before you need to construct your Witness Statement, where information from the SAR could be very useful.