County Court Judgement Received

nosferatu1001

Tell. us. what. the. order. states. 3rd time. 
Fine. File a defence. There is the feb 2020 one on here. We're 12 pages in. I struggle to believ this is the first time youve ever seen anything about filing a defence
I have no idea if it will be thrown out. I presume youve looked or a set aside under both 13.2 and 13.3? 13.3 is "any other good reason" such as having a reasonable chance of success, and is where we always, and i mean ALWAYS, tell people to file a defence with the set aside. 

Blue1133

3. Order Dismissing the Claim

 

3.1 I, the Defendant, further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

 

3.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a ‘Parking Charge Notice’, the Defendant thus disputes the claim in its entirety as he does not know the wording of the contract nor does he know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

 

3.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is, or was, the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

 

3.4. The Defendant understands xxx to be a Private Parking Company. Any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This includes the requirement to issue the Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the alleged incident. If the Claimant has not complied with the requirements of the Act, they cannot claim this charge against the Defendant as the Registered Keeper in any case and where said keeper is unable to identify the driver.

 

3. If the Notice to Keeper was not issued within 14 days, then the Claimant is required to prove who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident.

 

2.6. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of a car 2 years and 3 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

 

2.7. For the Claimant to have obliged the Defendant to provide the drivers details at the time of said breach the Claimant would be required to apply for a ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’, the Defendant is not aware of any such order being made upon him.

 

2.5. I, the Defendant further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.

2.5.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.

2.5.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to xxxxx

2.6. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the vehicle in this matter, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

 

The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

Le_Kirk

Blue1133 said:

what is the pocket defence I was told to have to hand then

I think that is what we call "having a defence in your back pocket" in case the judge asks for it at the (face to face) hearing.  Isn't yours to be a telephone hearing?  If so, you would need to prove to the judge that you have a "likely prospect" of being able to defend the original claim, that is done with a defence.

Blue1133

Ok, so is this a defence that must be filed?

Le_Kirk

Have you been asked to supply your documents by e-mail for a telephone hearing or are you going to a f2f hearing.  If telephone then yes, it needs to be filed (and served on the claimant unless the court have only requested a pack from you.)

nosferatu1001

So the document above - is this something you filed with your set aside paperwork? A simple yes or no is needed
Youre stilll not showing the order, so its really tough to know what youve been asked to do. As such Im out. 

Blue1133

Parties shall seek to agree a paginated, indexed, tabbed, electronic hearing bundle which contains the essential documents of the case.

Claimant or applicant shall by no later than 12pm on day before hearing electronically file the bundle by email to xxx, or by link to secure server

Bundle must include;
Case summary and chronology (agreed if possible)

Parties position statements or skeleton arguments;

Any previous orders that are relevant to the remote hearing;

The statements of case (if appropriate)

All essential documents to determine the issues that fall for determination at the remote hearing; 

Draft order

nosferatu1001

So easy then
Assuming youve dropped the numbering but strarting as para 1
1) thats you and the claimant. You need to agree between you the documents that will be included, and you MUST do so
2) You are the applicant for the set aside, so YOU must file the bundle you made at 1)
Thats it, really. 

Blue1133

How do I satisfy that point? I copied them into the bundle email, and as yet they have simply said they will not attend the hearing, and will rely on any information already provided. 

Filed the bundle, but no documents entitled skeleton arguments, statement of case or draft defence.

Blue1133

nosferatu1001 said:

So the document above - is this something you filed with your set aside paperwork? A simple yes or no is needed
Youre stilll not showing the order, so its really tough to know what youve been asked to do. As such Im out. 

Yes