County Court Claim Form Defence

Charlie1900

Redx said:

This thread seems similar to your predicament , why are you not following it ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6207383/ncp-claim-help/p1

NCP , keeper isn't the driver , etc

Thanks a lot. Didn't notice this thread and will have a read. 

Redx

I assume you binned the NTK PCN , so until you have a copy it's pointless asking us about keeper liability , like you we don't know either , because you have not shown us the NTK (both sides)

Your defence is based on incorrect company contract , no landowner authority , keeper was not the driver etc , same as that other thread except yours is Britannia , who usually contract as the wrong company , unlike NCP

Charlie1900

Sorry, I didn't read the Newbies thread thoroughly. It said 'never ring the debt collector'. Now I regret that I rang the debt collector to explain the situation after receiving the claim form and said my Dad was the driver without giving his name. I also said it was unfair to get the parking notice as he just entered and left after a couple of minutes. The phone call was probably recorded. Will this be used against me in the court? If asked about the driver in the court, can I say I am not fully sure who the driver was (given this is the case)?  Now I am thinking quitting the defence and paying the full amount to avoid losing the case. 

Coupon-mad

Charlie1900 said:

Particulars of Claim on my claim form 
The Claim is for the sum of [amount XXX] being the contractual charge due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on [Date XXX] in the private car park/land at [Car Park address XXX] in relation to a [Car Model XXX] registration mark [Reg number]. The PCN was issued as the Defendant failed to comply with terms and conditions, as displayed. Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid. The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.02) from [Date XXX] to [Date XXX] being an amount of [Amount £XXX]. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice.  

So that lends itself to a new defence para #2 & 3:  

2.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.   The Defendant was not the driver and firstly heard about the parking charge by post, some weeks later.  The Defendant felt harassed by a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters and even telephoned them to say that the driver was another family member.  The Defendant cannot be held liable under any applicable law, if the Claimant has not complied with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

3.  The stylised Particulars for this exaggerated claim for an unconscionable global sum of £160 fail to meet the requirements for a Statement of Case and Particulars of Claim, as set out in CPR 16.2 and 16.4, including such matters as failing to set out:
(i)  the sum of the parking charge that the Claimant contends was on the signage and Notice to Keeper ('NTK');
(ii) whether the Claimant is the landowner or not; and if not, in what capacity the Claimant is bringing this claim in their name;
(iii) the identity of the company on the signage, landowner contract and NTK (the Defendant is unable to admit it was this Claimant);
(iv)  the relevant contract and/or relevant obligation that they contend the driver breached;
(v) the grounds for claiming a sum in excess of the sum on the NTK;
(vi) the identity of the driver, if known;
(vii) whether the claim is being brought under the POFA (or not) and in what capacity the Claimant asserts that the Defendant is liable. If they were presuming that the Defendant was the driver, they have no evidence nor any lawful reason to make such an incorrect presumption (which is the opposite of the POFA provisions).

3.1.  Again, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all of the above and the Court is invited to consider using its case management powers to strike out the claim, or order revised particulars and/or a preliminary hearing given the matter of lack of standing of the Claimant, in that the Defendant has seen no evidence of this Claimant's capacity to sue.  The Defendant is unable to admit (iii) above and after research, holds the honest belief that a different Limited company was likely to be stated on any signage, NTK and/or any landowner authority.

Coupon-mad

Charlie1900 said:

Sorry, I didn't read the Newbies thread thoroughly. It said 'never ring the debt collector'. Now I regret that I rang the debt collector to explain the situation after receiving the claim form and said my Dad was the driver without giving his name. I also said it was unfair to get the parking notice as he just entered and left after a couple of minutes. The phone call was probably recorded. Will this be used against me in the court? If asked about the driver in the court, can I say I am not fully sure who the driver was (given this is the case)?  Now I am thinking quitting the defence and paying the full amount to avoid losing the case. 

How do newbies not understand that it was a GOOD thing that you told them you were not driving, and that saying it was your Dad is fine!  You don't start lying. You continue saying the same truth.

Charlie1900

Redx said:

I assume you binned the NTK PCN , so until you have a copy it's pointless asking us about keeper liability , like you we don't know either , because you have not shown us the NTK (both sides)

Your defence is based on incorrect company contract , no landowner authority , keeper was not the driver etc , same as that other thread except yours is Britannia , who usually contract as the wrong company , unlike NCP

Yes. I binned all letters from PPC and debt collector except the letter of claim from BW Legal. 

Charlie1900

Coupon-mad said:

Charlie1900 said:

Sorry, I didn't read the Newbies thread thoroughly. It said 'never ring the debt collector'. Now I regret that I rang the debt collector to explain the situation after receiving the claim form and said my Dad was the driver without giving his name. I also said it was unfair to get the parking notice as he just entered and left after a couple of minutes. The phone call was probably recorded. Will this be used against me in the court? If asked about the driver in the court, can I say I am not fully sure who the driver was (given this is the case)?  Now I am thinking quitting the defence and paying the full amount to avoid losing the case. 

How do newbies not understand that it was a GOOD thing that you told them you were not driving, and that saying it was your Dad is fine!  You don't start lying. You continue saying the same truth.

I deeply regretted having a conversation with them. I am now relieved and your words are very reassuring. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, it was utterly pointless ringing them but not damaging, because it merely confirmed you were not the driver.

Did you see I re-wrote your defence points for you, above?

Redx

Charlie1900 said:

Redx said:

I assume you binned the NTK PCN , so until you have a copy it's pointless asking us about keeper liability , like you we don't know either , because you have not shown us the NTK (both sides)

Your defence is based on incorrect company contract , no landowner authority , keeper was not the driver etc , same as that other thread except yours is Britannia , who usually contract as the wrong company , unlike NCP

Yes. I binned all letters from PPC and debt collector except the letter of claim from BW Legal. 

Very foolish because you would now have the paperwork to hand , plus if you had come here back then we would have helped you to win at Popla , so stop binning letters !!

Regrets come in packs 😜

Coupon mad has rewritten your paragraphs for you

Bear in mind that if you lost in Court your final bill is probably less than the amount claimed by the claimant, so why pay a larger figure ?

Charlie1900

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, it was utterly pointless ringing them but not damaging, because it merely confirmed you were not the driver.

Did you see I re-wrote your defence points for you, above?

Thanks so much for the defence points tailored to my needs. Sounds great!! I'll incorporate them into the defence.