Letter Before Claim - VCS

KeithP

blakbruker said:

Well the RK has finally received the County Court Claim Form 

What is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?


Somewhere in paras 2 & 3 there should be something about what happened on the day - what the alleged transgression was, type of car park, etc. Set the scene.

blakbruker

Apologies, I've removed everything from the defence except the first few para's I've changed/wrote. The issue date on the form is the 27/11/20 so I make today day 5.
What happened on the day was the driver got a ticket allegedly for leaving site, there was no interaction with the parking officer. The driver was NOT the keeper so should it be relevant for the keeper to defend what they couldn't have been involved in? Interestingly on the NtK all it says for the reason is "parking in a restricted/prohibited area". The first mention of leaving site is in a letter rejecting the appeal (to VCS not the IPC) which says that the patrol officer observered "you" (addressed to the driver)  not to be a customer on site. I can't understand why the RK was required to be on-site when they weren't even in the vehicle!
One other point, from the SAR pack there is a a transcript that says they emailed the PO asking if they checked in the stores and another sayign they replied to say they did, however, the only email contained in the pack is the one asking the PO, would that be pertinent?

Le_Kirk

blakbruker said:

3.  The driver of the vehicle found a document attached to the windscreen of the vehicle which can only be described as a Notice to Driver. The Defendant received a Notice to Keeper a week after this date in question and promptly appealed but was rejected, as was expected by all accounts sue to the inpartiality of the IPC. Thus followed many harassing and threatening letters. The Defendant asked the Claimant to take the matter to court if they believed there really was a case to answer but instead many more letters of harassment were received from the Claimant and agents acting on their behalf.

Maybe change to this: -
3.  The driver of the vehicle found a document attached to the windscreen of the vehicle which can only be described as a Notice to Driver. The Defendant received a Notice to Keeper a week after this date in question and promptly appealed but was rejected, as was expected by all accounts sue due to the lack of impartiality inpartiality of the IPC. Thus followed many harassing and threatening letters. The Defendant asked the Claimant to take the matter to court if they believed there really was a case to answer but instead many more letters of harassment were received from the Claimant and agents acting on their behalf.

KeithP

blakbruker said:

The issue date on the form is the 27/11/20 so I make today day 5.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th November, you have until Wednesday 16th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 30th December 2020 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Fruitcake

What you have posted so far does not really appear to be a defence.

You haven't explained where this happened or what happened.

Some parts are relevant, for example the part about the card left for the driver to find must have been a notice to driver. 
In my opinion your defence should include the following points: -
The keeper was not the driver, and the scammers have failed to provide a valid NTK that complies with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 therefore the keeper cannot be held liable. The NTK was sent too early where a NtD is first given, and the wording does not comply with the requirements of the PoFA.
The site boundary has not been defined either by wording or a map on the signs.
The scammers have not provided any proof that the driver left the undefined site. No photos or a copy of the scamtendant's notes have been provided.
The scammers have provided no proof that they have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charges or pursue the keeper to court.

You only get one chance at the defence, so you need to get it right. Exhibits and a witness statement will be required at a later date to expand on your defence points. You can't add anything to your defence at a later date unless you cough up a hundred quid.

blakbruker

Thanks Fruitbat, I'll get some more added. 

1505grandad

"Fruitbat?"  -  oops!!

Umkomaas

blakbruker said:

Thanks Fruitbat, I'll get some more added. 

Well that's a new one!  

Wasn't it one of those sold at the Chinese wet market?

The difference between a cake and a bat - Covid!🦇 

blakbruker

Oops! So sorry!!!!! 

blakbruker

OK, so the strategic timing of this claim has become clear as at this busiest time of year! Here's the amended first points of defence. In my opinion the boundary of the site was clearly defined so don't wish to use a point that would be a clear losing point, unless I can be advised otherwise:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. Also the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question at the time in question. 

3.  The driver of the vehicle found a document attached to the windscreen of the vehicle which can only be described as a Notice to Driver. The Defendant received a Notice to Keeper a week after this date in question and promptly appealed but was rejected, as was expected by all accounts due to the lack of impartiality of the IPC. There followed many harassing and threatening letters. The Defendant asked the Claimant to take the matter to court if they believed there really was a case to answer but instead many more letters of harassment were received from the Claimant and agents acting on their behalf.

4. The receipt of the Notice to Keeper, less than 28 days from the issue of the Notice to Driver fails to comply with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4. Furthermore the wording of the NtK fails to comply with the requirements of the PoFA

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Particular of Claim state that the Defendant breached advertised terms and conditions , namely parking in a restricted/prohibited are but give no explanation of  what was prohibited or restricted about the location. In the rejection of the appeal by the Defendant the reason was given as the driver leaving site but this has not been expressly stated as the basis for this claim. It is put to strict proof that the Claimant prove that the driver left the site as the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.