POFA '12 not valid?

Umkomaas

You're straying well into legal territory now which is beyond my comfort/knowledge zone. I'm not someone who will BS you if I don't have the confidence in my potential answer. But Abuse of Process is not a term we use any longer and it was only then in relation to additional spurious charges levied by the PPC for admin or debt collection charges (now known as Double Recovery). In the Wilkinson case Abuse of Process was about  spurious charges, but in your case are you confusing Abuse of Process with Unreasonable Behaviour?  Rhetorical question, I think you might be better throwing it out for legal opinions on the LegalBeagles forum. 

Lockable

Umkomaas said:

You're straying well into legal territory now which is beyond my comfort/knowledge zone. I'm not someone who will BS you if I don't have the confidence in my potential answer. But Abuse of Process is not a term we use any longer and it was only then in relation to additional spurious charges levied by the PPC for admin or debt collection charges (now known as Double Recovery). In the Wilkinson case Abuse of Process was about  spurious charges, but in your case are you confusing Abuse of Process with Unreasonable Behaviour?  Rhetorical question, I think you might be better throwing it out for legal opinions on the LegalBeagles forum. 

I should perhaps have been more clear, I'm thinking of abuse of process in the same way as used in the Wilkinson case. This being CST 'Law' they've added charges to bring it over £200 so indeed 'Double Recovery'. 
It looks similar to Wilkinson from here, but I can't be certain.

Coupon-mad

They are all the same (except Parking Eye cases & one or two rare others who don't add false costs).  This doesn't need chewing over, there is nothing special about the phrase 'abuse of process' so please DON'T use it.  Why can newbies not just understand that adding costs that were never incurred is clearly unrecoverable and an attempt at double recovery and that's the phrase to use, don't try to tell your Judge what to think by throwing around any other phrase.  These cases are all the same.

Excel v Wilkinson gives your Judge a steer because it explains the issues well.

Stop overthinking this.  They are talking rubbish:

7. A notice to the keeper letter was sent to the Defendant dated 4/3/2016, please see
enclosed hereto marked “CS4”. The second page of the notice to the keeper letter is a
generic format. The Defendant did not make the Claimant aware of the name and
current address for service of an alternative driver within 28 days from which the
notice was given as stipulated under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).

8. Therefore, the Claimant has the right to recover from the Defendant the unpaid parking charges.

The case is continuing because strike outs are rare and the court wants a Judge to hear all this from you, ultimately. Nothing has changed from your defence position.

Lockable

Coupon-mad said:

They are all the same (except Parking Eye cases & one or two rare others who don't add false costs).  This doesn't need chewing over, there is nothing special about the phrase 'abuse of process' so please DON'T use it.  Why can newbies not just understand that adding costs that were never incurred is clearly unrecoverable and an attempt at double recovery and that's the phrase to use, don't try to tell your Judge what to think by throwing around any other phrase.  

OK, you don't like the phrase, it's a phrase I got from here, perhaps why newbies keep tripping over it.

Is there a better place to look for how to word a usage of double recovery in my defence, than the Wilkinson judgement?

Coupon-mad

But the template defence I wrote already covers it.  You are not meant to add anything other than the facts of the car park/event (or that you are the keeper and know nothing about it, or whatever your facts are).

The phrase 'abuse of process' got done to death pointlessly by one poster.  Forget it.

Lockable

Coupon-mad said:

But the template defence I wrote already covers it.  You are not meant to add anything other than the facts of the car park/event (or that you are the keeper and know nothing about it, or whatever your facts are).

The phrase 'abuse of process' got done to death pointlessly by one poster.  Forget it.

OK. Understood.

Lockable

Coupon-mad said:

But the template defence I wrote already covers it.  You are not meant to add anything other than the facts of the car park/event (or that you are the keeper and know nothing about it, or whatever your facts are).

Here's the personalised part of my defence, Paras. 2 & 3 from the template.
Does this seem ok? Anything I might want to add or subtract?
---

2.    It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.   This incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3/11/15 at  XXXX. I was not the driver on the day in question. Some months later, on the 4/3/16 I received, by post, a 'Notice to Keeper' regarding this incident. No appeal process was available to me & no option to communicate with the PPC, other than to give them money, was offered.

After some research on this matter I discovered the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Within the act are parameters for pursuing the registered keeper of a vehicle in the event of a parking incident such as the one alleged by the claimant. It swiftly became apparent to me that the claimant hadn't abided by these parameters & indeed didn't seem to be familiar with POFA '12 & that the claim had no merit whatsoever. The NTK had arrived 122 days after the 'incident' not with 56 days as laid out under POFA '12.

The first claim letter was received from 'B.W Legal' on April 11th 2016. This letter made an inflated claim for an amount they say was the 'balance due'. The letter didn't mention POFA '12, but made threats about a possible CCJ for non-payment.

I responded to this letter on 17th April pointing out that I was not the driver on the day of the alleged incident & that they had failed with regard to POFA '12 to follow the correct procedure, therefore would not be able to pursue me as the registered keeper.

I received no acknowledgement from either 'B.W Legal' or Conkai Security ltd. to my letter except that at regular intervals for the next 5 years similar threatening, false claim letters with inflated amounts & varying degrees of coherence arrived until the 'case' appears to have been taken up by CST 'Law' who have added their own amount to the initial charge. I responded to each letter informing them that as the former registered keeper, I cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

---

Le_Kirk

In your paragraph 2 you do not say if you were the driver or not.  Defences are written in the third person, therefore no "I" but "the defendant".  You need to set the scene for the judge by explaining the type of car park and what the claimant is alleging.  Keep it short, punchy and use legal/technical arguments that you can expand on in your witness statement (WS) and then part of your evidence to accompany your WS is proof that you were elsewhere on the day.

Lockable

Le_Kirk said:

 Keep it short, punchy and use legal/technical arguments that you can expand on in your witness statement (WS) and then part of your evidence to accompany your WS is proof that you were elsewhere on the day.

It was 6 years ago & I can't definitely prove I was elsewhere on the day, I can circumstantially indicate that I was elsewhere around that time but can't substantiate this, should I include this anyway?

Le_Kirk

It is for the claimant to prove you were the driver but anything you can provide to cast doubt on their assertions would be good.