County Court Business Centre query

Redx

Do not say I , I indicates the gf

Say the driver , as in the driver parked , the driver was given permission etc

The only I is , I was not the Driver , because she wasn't driving , so start with that

Anything involving you is , the driver , no names , no I

davemdavid

Redx said:

Do not say I , I indicates the gf

Say the driver , as in the driver parked , the driver was given permission etc

The only I is , I was not the Driver , because she wasn't driving , so start with that

Anything involving you is , the driver , no names , no I

Redx said:

Do not say I , I indicates the gf

Say the driver , as in the driver parked , the driver was given permission etc

The only I is , I was not the Driver , because she wasn't driving , so start with that

Anything involving you is , the driver , no names , no I

Yes sure i get that, I of course won't mention myself in the formal documentation! I was just being informal on here

Coupon-mad

Apologies - then the Defendant must state that she was not the driver, and change this accordingly to be less woolly & state she was not driving (and ONLY have the bit that she is 'unaware' of any PCNs if that is true, which it can't be, as later on, she needs to say she knows all the band members got PCNs:

The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters.

Leave this in, after all:

A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

And this forms point #17:

17.  The Defendant was not the driver, who was a family member.  There is no legal obligation or failure by a registered keeper who chooses to use the protection in the POFA 2012 to defend a case, and has reasonably decided not to name the driver.  The driver was playing a gig, and the venue gave express permission to park outside, with other band members, all of whom received these unauthorised 'parking tickets' from OPS.  None of the band members saw any signage and certainly did not knowlingly or by conduct, enter into any contract with the Claimant or agree to pay a penalty for parking.  Even if the Court believes the signs were visible, well lit, well placed and legible with the onerous charge in large lettering (which is denied) the existing verbal contract to park had been offered and accepted as an agreement between the venue and the driver.  Thus, the defence asserts that the common law doctrine of privity of contract prevents this third party from enforcing a term of the venue's verbal contract (in this case changing the agreement/easement from the venue permitting parking, to try to charge £100 for it).

davemdavid

Ok thanks guys, here is my gf's defence as it stands. 

davemdavid

Coupon-mad said:

Apologies - then the Defendant must state that she was not the driver, and change this accordingly to be less woolly & state she was not driving (and ONLY have the bit that she is 'unaware' of any PCNs if that is true, which it can't be, as later on, she needs to say she knows all the band members got PCNs:

The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters.

Leave this in, after all:

A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

And this forms point #17:

17.  The Defendant was not the driver, who was a family member.  There is no legal obligation or failure by a registered keeper who chooses to use the protection in the POFA 2012 to defend a case, and has reasonably decided not to name the driver.  The driver was playing a gig, and the venue gave express permission to park outside, with other band members, all of whom received these unauthorised 'parking tickets' from OPS.  None of the band members saw any signage and certainly did not knowlingly or by conduct, enter into any contract with the Claimant or agree to pay a penalty for parking.  Even if the Court believes the signs were visible, well lit, well placed and legible with the onerous charge in large lettering (which is denied) the existing verbal contract to park had been offered and accepted as an agreement between the venue and the driver.  Thus, the defence asserts that the common law doctrine of privity of contract prevents this third party from enforcing a term of the venue's verbal contract (in this case changing the agreement/easement from the venue permitting parking, to try to charge £100 for it).

Thanks for this. Just posted my latest version of the defence, however not seen this...

Coupon-mad

OK. It's nearly there!
If you want to send me a pm we can take this to email for later on, so your OH can chat to me an realise i am who I say I am and do what I say I will do for her and am a local person very familiar with Brighton. 

Also she needs to know this is not the only paperwork, as shown by bargepole in his thread I've linked in the NEWBIES thread about 'what happens when'.  She will later get the chance to add evidence, and photos.  Was it dark that evening, or was it daytime when you arrived?

davemdavid

Coupon-mad said:

OK. It's nearly there!
If you want to send me a pm we can take this to email for later on, so your OH can chat to me an realise i am who I say I am and do what I say I will do for her and am a local person very familiar with Brighton. 

Also she needs to know this is not the only paperwork, as shown by bargepole in his thread I've linked in the NEWBIES thread about 'what happens when'.  She will later get the chance to add evidence, and photos.  Was it dark that evening, or was it daytime when you arrived?

I've added your point under 17 ( I hadn't seen as I sent my latest version at the same time you posted your comment )

Here is the latest version, I've sort of merged the two. 

Coupon-mad

'The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle' 

Better, apart from remove the above, which is not needed, as she later makes it clear that she was not driving. 

And you still haven't changed this (below).  I went into some detail in my earlier replies, why this figure is the wrong one.  Stop looking at the interest!

However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £177.51.

davemdavid

Coupon-mad said:

'The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle' 

Better, apart from remove the above, which is not needed, as she later makes it clear that she was not driving. 

And you still haven't changed this (below).  I went into some detail in my earlier replies, why this figure is the wrong one.  Stop looking at the interest!

However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £177.51.

Sure, will remove that - I meant to earlier. So here is the final version (ignore my pm)

Coupon-mad

That looks fine, minus all the red, and plus Appendix C (as shown in the template defence thread).

Wait a mo, has she got the new statement of truth?  It changed last week and I need to change it in the template!