Defence to check please

1505grandad

Also, you will notice that the Defence is written in third party mode i.e. "the Defendant"  -  so no "I", "me", "my" etc.

taking_time

Have rewriten
This is the only bits i have changed:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  The  car has now been sold.  Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, due to the time elapsed since xx/5/2019 it is not known if they were the driver of the vehicle at the time.  Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

3. Due to the time that has elapsed, it’s not known who the driver was.  The Defendant parked and used the car park with their family.  The car was insured for 2 named drivers, the Defendant and their husband. .  

The Defendant and family drove into the car park.  They used the car park, the husband paid for parking by credit card for the period parked and left the car park.  See credit card statement listing NCP on the date the vehicle was parked, Halifax credit card receipt.  It was a Saturday the credit card receipt shows the date the car was parked, and the date it was debited from the account, the following Monday. The Defendants husband paid NCP £1.70 on Saturday 25 May 2019, this cleared on 27 May 2019.  The credit card is in his name.  They share the same rare family name.

Perhaps the parking payment machine made an error when the vehicle registration number was entered. 

The Defendant first heard about the parking charge when they received a letter by post from NCP over a month later, purporting that they had not paid for parking.  They wrote to NCP and then BW Legal numerous times over the years saying that they had paid on the day, with evidence of the credit card payment receipt. 

The Defendant felt harassed by the repeated letters that ignored that they paid on the day and intended to pay for parking.  There were numerous “debt recovery” letters.   The Defendant 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

Coupon-mad

Due to the time that has elapsed, it’s not known who the driver was.  The Defendant parked

Spot the problem with those two sentences!

taking_time

Thanks Doh!

taking_time

Is the rest ok?  They have said a few times they have no record of the payment but we have the credit card receipt.   Thank you 😊 

Le_Kirk

Some of that defence reads like a witness statement (WS).  Defences are written in the third person so change "I" to "the defendant".  Also defences are a series of technical/legal arguments not a story, leave that for the WS.

Coupon-mad

Change to this and make it all ONE paragraph and you don't say 'see credit card receipt'' because you don't attach anything to a defence:

3. Due to the time that has elapsed and the fact that no PCN was applied on the day, it is not known who the driver was and the balance of probabilities is not tipped in favour of the Claimant.  The Defendant cannot be held liable as registered keeper, due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.  The Defendant first heard about the parking charge when they received a letter by post from NCP over a month later, which is too late for 'keeper liability' to be invoked.  purporting that they had not paid for parking.   The Defendant parked and used the car park with their family.  The car was insured for 2 named drivers, the Defendant and their husband.  The Defendant and family drove into the car park.  They used the car park,   It is admitted that the car was parked at the location on the material date and from credit card records - already shown as part of an appeal, to this Claimant - it is known that the Defendant's husband paid for parking.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that any contravention occurred and any evidence they hold as to which driver parked on that day and how they contend that they have a cause of action against the Defendant as registered keeper.

 by credit card for the period parked and left the car park.  See credit card statement listing NCP on the date the vehicle was parked, Halifax credit card receipt.  It was a Saturday the credit card receipt shows the date the car was parked, and the date it was debited from the account, the following Monday. The Defendants husband paid NCP £1.70 on Saturday 25 May 2019, this cleared on 27 May 2019.  The credit card is in his name.  They share the same rare family name.

Perhaps the parking payment machine made an error when the vehicle registration number was entered. 

 They wrote to NCP and then BW Legal numerous times over the years saying that they had paid on the day, with evidence of the credit card payment receipt. 

The Defendant felt harassed by the repeated letters that ignored that they paid on the day and intended to pay for parking.  There were numerous “debt recovery” letters.  

D_P_Dance

 and the balance of probabilities is not tipped in favour of the Claimant.  

Or "OTBOP it was most unlikely to have been the driver"

taking_time

Thank you very much.   Final defence below

3. Due to the time that has elapsed and the fact that no PCN was applied on the day, it is not known who the driver was and the balance of probabilities is not tipped in favour of the Claimant.  The Defendant cannot be held liable as registered keeper, due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.  The Defendant first heard about the parking charge when they received a letter by post from NCP over a month later, which is too late for 'keeper liability' to be invoked.  The car was insured for 2 named drivers, the Defendant and their husband.   It is admitted that the car was parked at the location on the material date and from credit card records - already shown as part of an appeal, to this Claimant - it is known that the Defendant's husband paid for parking.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that any contravention occurred and any evidence they hold as to which driver parked on that day and how they contend that they have a cause of action against the Defendant as registered keeper.