Received Claim Form late after it was sent to a previous address. PCN concerns parking at a friends.

Coupon-mad

Don't reply asking us to check the defence, you have ZERO time.

joey19

Hey, thanks again for your reply.

In regards to the extension, I read on the Newbies thread that once I had submitted a SAR that I should request an extension from CCBC until VCS were able to get back to me, which they still haven't done. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to file a defence without this information from them.

Do you have any advice on how I should proceed from this point? Should I file a defence without hearing back from VCS? I stated in my email to them that I was asked to file a defence by this Monday and have so far, essentially, been ignored by them. I realise this is now a bit of a mess.

Quentin

You haven't seen that in the FAQ!!

But why are you posting here when you have been so strongly told what to do

And should have done by now!

nosferatu1001

No, thats not what it says on the newbies. Thats what it says to do when you have a LBC, and you request more time frmo the solicitors / PPC before filing a claim as they have to give time for the SAR response and to seek debt advice

FILE A DEFENCE, TODAY, OR LOSE.
I do not know how many times you can be told this.
You had 2 weeks to write a defence, adapated from the ones here. You did not need a single document from VCS to do this.

Yes, this is a mess of your own making. You have one choice - file a defence, or lose.

joey19

Hi All, I've sent my Defence. Look I appreciate the frustration here it must be annoying to give your time away for free and for someone to make stupid mistakes. I apologise that we misinterpreted the newbies forum, we've got a lot going on at our end and so giving this the time it deserves was hard. Nevertheless I really appreciate all of the help given.

In regards to what will happen next does anyone have any insight? Is there anything I can do now to improve the situation; should I just pay the ticket or do something else?

nosferatu1001

If you were going to pay then there was no point sending a defence, I would suggest

We dont even know what your defence IS, in order to know if it can be improved or not.

You have to treast this seriously, but at the same time work it into your priorities. This is a formal legal process.

If you cant afford to give this the itme it needs, and can afford to, then paying up is one option.

joey19

I'd prefer not to but I'm unsure of what the consequences of my late submission are. If the choices were to receive a CCJ or pay then I'd obviously prefer the latter but as I said I'm not sure if its all said and done yet or whether I have other options.

Again, I apologise for misreading the newbies forum. In my mind it essentially said to apply for the extension while I waited for SAR and that they always denied the extension but not to post about it because this always happens. This is why I did not post, I thought everything was progressing as standard. I can see now that I was wrong.

In regards to my defence this is what was sent;

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence on account of the claimant not replying to a Subject Access Request. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ********* which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Admiral with three named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on 13/12/18 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at **************.

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of **********, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease and a copy of the parking permit will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To this I attached a copy of the permit.

Quentin

You may already have a ccj depending on how on the ball the claimant is

If you have it will turn up in the post in the next few days

But if you do end up with either a default ccj or by losing in court then as long as you pay in full within a month of the date of judgement it can be removed from the records and will have no detriment to you as far as your credit record is concerned

nosferatu1001

Quentin - they said today was the final day, so as it is sent before 4pm there should be no chance of a CCJ.

INdeed, its the PPCs/Solicitors that never give more time, and that had nothing to do with the courts.

Quentin

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Quentin - they said today was the final day, so as it is sent before 4pm there should be no chance of a CCJ.

No

The defendant is late sending a defence Should have been done on Monday by 4!

That's why we have been repeatedly posting to get a defence in

Hoping the claimant hasn't already requested judgement