Advice county court claim, BW legal

Le_Kirk

jvf1000 wrote: »

thank you all so far.
Yes, my wife is also involved in writing it and she will sign it off before sending.

Therefore you/she cannot say "The defendant is not the RK"

Le_Kirk

On what basis was she named as defendant?

The_Deep

On the basis on another FUBAR by the PPC surely.

1505grandad

Per post #1:-

"My wife received a PCN(Link parking) in January this year for parking within a gated private parking space when visiting the tennants at our appartment. The reason for the ticket was given as 'not clearly displaying a valid permit' . Parking spaces are allocated to the apartments.
Link parking was contacted to dispute the PCN and the managing agents confirmed to them (Link) that she was the owner of the appartment and parking space. Also, as we did not have a permit to display, they(Link) sent us a new permit.
The appeal to the parking firm was rejected.
A further email was sent to Link to dispute their ticket but no reply was received"

Perhaps when "Link Parking was contacted" the drivers name was stated?

In which case the defendant should be defending as driver.

The_Deep

In residential cases, where the driver is the leaseholder, there is little point in hiding behind POFA imo.

Le_Kirk

Too confusing for me; still cannot work out why the driver received a court claim when the driver is not the registered keeper. Was it a windscreen ticket and the driver appealed and admitted who was driving and gave their name and address for service?

Umkomaas

The liability primarily lies with the driver. If the driver isn't identified, the PPC can have that liability transferred to the registered keeper, provided the comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

As the driver has identified herself, the RK is out of the picture entirely, and PoFA has no relevance.

Le_Kirk

jvf1000 wrote: »

Hello
I have read my wifes emails to link parking after the incident. She states that she parked the car, and that she is the owner of a flat in the block as well as a parking bay (giving the flat address).
How does this change the defence?

The only thing stated in the defence, is that she is not the registered keeper –which is fact.
She is the defendant as she is the driver but as she is not the keeper. Does this make a difference.

Should a pcn and subsequent claim be served to the keeper to be valid?
Does it matter who the driver is?

I think, with your clarification (thank you), that the only issue with the defence is that it states "I was not the RK" but as she is defending as driver, I'm not sure she needs to put that. However if it was left in, I doubt it would affect the defence either way.

KeithP

Crikey, you still haven't filed a Defence??

It was nearly two weeks ago, 29th September, that I wrote:

Then perhaps the Defendant should file a Defence pdq - before the Claimant wakes up and requests a Default Judgment.

File it - whatever it says. Do it now - as described in my earlier post!!

Molts

Will it be detrimental to me in any way, now to put down a home address on the DQ for further correspondance

No, but it could be if you failed to receive any documentation from the court or c in a timely fashion. If you're 100% certain you will receive all your mail at the current address for service then you should be fine.

If you do change it keep an eye on both, it wouldn't be below the parking scumpany and associated parasites to "accidentally" use an old address for service.