Court Claim

Pickle20

@KeithP this is really helpful, thanks a lot

Coupon-mad

You only get 28 + 5 if you didn't do the AOS sooner than day 5.

Pickle20

Thanks to everyone. Please see my final Defence, i intend to send this off today so any further input will be really helpful.

DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant denies that a breach of the terms of parking has been committed as alleged by the Claimant.

4. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, areas of parking in the location reported are provided for the use of various businesses located in the business park and the Defendant was a customer making enquiries at one of the businesses located in the reported location.

5. Whilst at the location, the Defendant had developed serious medical complication which made it physically impossible for the vehicle to be removed from the location. Subsequently, the Defendant went through a major surgical procedure and was hospitalised from the day of the alleged breach, which further impacted on the Defendant’s ability to physically and safely remove the vehicle.

6. Due to this medical emergency, the Defendant is not liable as removing the vehicle from the location at the time could have put the Defendant’s life and the lives of others at risk of serious harm/injury.

7. The Defendant is not liable as the PCN was appealed with explanation and evidence of the defendant’s surgery and hospitalisation records however, due consideration was not given to the facts and limiting circumstances of the situation.

8. Furthermore, Notice to Driver was served by post and Claimant did not receive the Notice until over 14 days after the alleged breach occurred.

9. The time gap between the alleged offence and the Letter before Claim was roughly 15 months.

10. The Defendant denies a Contract was formed with the Claimant because the Claimant has failed to comply with the PoF Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as no NTD was served and no NTK was received within the mandatory 14 days.

11. In any event, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the sum of £60 described in the Claim as contractual costs or any other sum in that regard, such claim being in breach of Schedule 4, 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there being no indication in any of the documents replied on by the Claimant that such a charge would be made. As such it is a claim with no prospect of success and thus an abuse of process, for which a wasted costs order per CPR Rule 46.8 ought to be made against the solicitors for the Claimant.

12. In view of the stated points, the Claimant’s claim herein is denied in full and the Court is invited to strike out the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

KeithP

Para 8 - A Notice to Driver is never served by post. It cannot be done. How on earth can they know the name and address of the driver at that point in time?
You mean a Notice to Keeper was received by post, surely?

Para 9 - what's the point of that statement?

Para 10 - Everyone will agree that any contract will have been between the driver and A N Other, so there is no need to deny that the Defendant was is a contract. What you need to deny is that the Claimant can transfer the Driver's liability to the Keeper because the Claimant failed to follow the strict rules to effect that transfer in POFA2012..

Pickle20

@KeithP yes you're right it was a notice to keeper. I've included Para 9 to state how long its taken them to bring this up or should i just take this out?
I've amended this to

"8. Furthermore, Notice to Keeper was served by post and Claimant did not receive the Notice until over 14 days after the alleged breach occurred, as such the Claimant has failed to comply with the PoF Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as no NTK was received within the mandatory 14 days.

9. The Defendant denies that the Claimant can transfer the Driver's liability to the Keeper because the Claimant failed to follow the strict rules to effect that transfer in POFA 2012."

1505grandad

Also para 8 - "....................... was served by post and (Claimant) did not receive the Notice until over 14 days after the alleged breach occurred.

should be (Defendant)

Redx

To me it's irrelevant how long an LBC arrived after the incident

The claimant has 6 years to issue a court claim , so say 5.8 years to issue an LBC

Pickle20

I've now incorporated all the suggestions in the below

DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant denies that a breach of the terms of parking has been committed as alleged by the Claimant.

4. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, areas of parking in the location reported are provided for the use of various businesses located in the business park and the Defendant was a customer making enquiries at one of the businesses located in the reported location.

5. Whilst at the location, the Defendant had developed serious medical complication which made it physically impossible for the vehicle to be removed from the location. Subsequently, the Defendant went through a major surgical procedure and was hospitalised from the day of the alleged breach, which further impacted on the Defendant’s ability to physically and safely remove the vehicle.

6. Due to this medical emergency, the Defendant is not liable as removing the vehicle from the location at the time could have put the Defendant’s life and the lives of others at risk of serious harm/injury.

7. The Defendant is not liable as the PCN was appealed with explanation and evidence of the defendant’s surgery and hospitalisation records however, due consideration was not given to the facts and limiting circumstances of the situation.

8. Furthermore, Notice to Keeper was served by post and Defendant did not receive the Notice until over 14 days after the alleged breach occurred as such the Claimant has failed to comply with the PoF Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as no NTK was received within the mandatory 14 days.

9. The Defendant denies that the Claimant can transfer the Driver's liability to the Keeper because the Claimant failed to follow the strict rules to effect that transfer in POFA 2012.

10. In any event, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the sum of £60 described in the Claim as contractual costs or any other sum in that regard, such claim being in breach of Schedule 4, 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there being no indication in any of the documents replied on by the Claimant that such a charge would be made. As such it is a claim with no prospect of success and thus an abuse of process, for which a wasted costs order per CPR Rule 46.8 ought to be made against the solicitors for the Claimant.

11. In view of the stated points, the Claimant’s claim herein is denied in full and the Court is invited to strike out the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Pickle20

@Redx i've now taken out that section in the final one. thanks a lot

Coupon-mad

If the medical episode was a feature of a long term medical condition likely to last or recur and impact on daily life over a period of more than 12 months, then the driver is protected by the Equality Act 2010 and the Claimant was afforded the opportunity to make 'reasonable adjustments' in your case and failed in their statutory duty to do so. This also offends against the Consumer Rights Act 2010 by placing an unbalanced burden on the driver, it is likely to fall foul of Schedule 2 (the grey list of unfair terms).

Please remove one or two uses of the word 'location' or 'located':

4. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, areas of parking in the location reported are provided for the use of various businesses located in the business park and the Defendant was a customer making enquiries at one of the businesses located in the reported location.

5. Whilst at the location,

6. Due to this medical emergency, the Defendant is not liable as removing the vehicle from the location

You appear to have missed the usual point about no proprietary interest, unless I missed seeing it.

Finally, if you are admitting to driving (which I think you must, under the circs) you can't have the point about the NTK arriving too late to hold you liable as keeper.