County Court Claim Form Defence

Coupon-mad

Maybe add something slightly more detailed to #2.  I will leave that you you to write, as you now understand it. Keep it concise.

Charlie1900

Coupon-mad said:

Maybe add something slightly more detailed to #2.  I will leave that you you to write, as you now understand it. Keep it concise.

Thank you. I'll add a bit more details.

Charlie1900

I have added some details on keeper liability in bold. Is it ok to add these?  (The remaining part of Point 2 & 3 was drafted by Coupon-mad.) I'll then send the finalised defence to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk    Thank you!  

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. The Notice to Keeper fails to meet at least the following ‘keeper liability’ requirements as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA:                      

(i) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges and the parking charges have not been paid in full;                                                                     

(ii) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of a specified period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose and the other facts that made them payable;                                                                               

(iii) specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid as at a time which is specified in the notice;                

(iv) state that the creditor does not know both the name and address of the driver;

(v) warn the keeper that if the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full and the creditor does not know both the name and address of the driver, the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper.

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).

Redx

The email address above is not correct

Charlie1900

Redx said:

The email address above is not correct

Thank you for pointing this out. I see it's ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk

Coupon-mad

Charlie1900 said:

I have added some details on keeper liability in bold. Is it ok to add these?  (The remaining part of Point 2 & 3 was drafted by Coupon-mad.) I'll then send the finalised defence to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk    Thank you!  

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. The Notice to Keeper fails to meet at least the following ‘keeper liability’ requirements as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA:                      

(i) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges and the parking charges have not been paid in full;                                                                     

(ii) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of a specified period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose and the other facts that made them payable;                                                                               

(iii) specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid as at a time which is specified in the notice;                

(iv) state that the creditor does not know both the name and address of the driver;

(v) warn the keeper that if the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full and the creditor does not know both the name and address of the driver, the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper.

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).

That's great and shows the Judge what's what.

Charlie1900

I did AoS and submitted the Defence via email and received auto email reply.  HM Courts & Tribunals Service acknowledged receipt of Defence via post and told me a copy of the Defence is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).

It's so funny that 10+ days after I received the confirmation of receipt of Defence from HM Courts & Tribunals Service, BW Legal still sent me a threat letter telling me that I didn't respond to the claim form and a default CCJ may be entered against me if I don't make a payment. So it seems BW Legal didn't bother to keep track of Defendant's response and just sent another automatic letter to me assuming I didn't respond to the claim form. 

HM Courts & Tribunals Service's letter said the claim will be stayed if BW Legal does not contact the court within 28 days. This looks quite likely now.  If the claim is stayed, can I ask the court to strike out the claim after a certain time period? Thanks for your help. 

I also sent a subject access request to BW Legal earlier. BW Legal acknowledged receipt of my request and provided a deadline (a month) to respond to my request. However, BW Legal failed to provide me any response within a month. So I'll make a complaint to the ICO soon.    

Umkomaas

However, BW Legal failed to provide me any response within a month. So I'll make a complaint to the ICO soon.    

Send BWL a chaser - 7 day response deadline - then off to the ICO if they fail. 

Charlie1900

Umkomaas said:

However, BW Legal failed to provide me any response within a month. So I'll make a complaint to the ICO soon.    

Send BWL a chaser - 7 day response deadline - then off to the ICO if they fail. 

Thanks. I'll do so. 

KeithP

Charlie1900 said:

HM Courts & Tribunals Service's letter said the claim will be stayed if BW Legal does not contact the court within 28 days. This looks quite likely now.   

Almost certainly BWL will respond by filing a DQ. It costs next to nothing. they will do that.

Charlie1900 said:

I also sent a subject access request to BW Legal earlier. BW Legal acknowledged receipt of my request and provided a deadline (a month) to respond to my request. However, BW Legal failed to provide me any response within a month. So I'll make a complaint to the ICO soon.    

Pointless sending a SAR to BWL. They hold nothing useful.

Send a SAR to the parking company.