PCN Claim Form

KeithP

is_data said:

KeithP said:

Of course @Fruitcake is right.
OP, can you please tell us exactly where the vehicle was parked?
Maybe a Google Street View image?

South Woodford Station Car Park, South Woodford, London E18 1JJ

That's good to hear.

So as I said earlier...

All London Underground station car parks are covered by Railway Bylaws and as such are not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Fruitcake

The entrance sign says NCP, but there is a London Underground emblem on the same sign. It is also right alongside the overground section of track.
I'm pretty sure therefore it is a TFL/London Underground car park where byelaws apply, meaning the driver can, the owner may, but the keeper cannot be held liable.

I would defend on the basis that the keeper is not liable, assuming that the driver's identity has never been revealed. An SAR will determine that, but may not arrive in time to provide proof of this, so it should be averred that the driver's identity is not known to the claimant and they must prove the keeper was the driver on the day in question. 

Castle

Confirmation that its subject to TFL Byelaws as from November 2014:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tube_station_car_parks_2

is_data

KeithP said:

But have you told them that or are they just assuming...?

This appears to be assumed by them as QDR has stated this on the CCBC claim form. 

is_data

nosferatu1001 said:

1) damn, was hoping it was past limitation of 6 years. 
2) Wow, it really makes that statement? IN that case, in para 2, the defendant admits to being the keeper - if true - but states they cannot confirm who was the driver on each occasion, and puts the claimant to strict proof of the drivers identity. Tat presumes that NO appeals were EVER made. Can you confirm that, for sure? Appeals may have given away the drivers identity. 
3) Oof, they havent got a hope. So drop £96 off each, what does that get you to? 

I tried to get as much information as possible. My friend had a few people visiting them over this course of time supporting them with regards to the divorce. It would be impossible to say if any family/friend did drive the car in question. As far as they can recall, no appeals were ever made. 

is_data

Fruitcake said:

.... I would defend on the basis that the keeper is not liable, assuming that the driver's identity has never been revealed. An SAR will determine that, but may not arrive in time to provide proof of this, so it should be averred that the driver's identity is not known to the claimant and they must prove the keeper was the driver on the day in question. 

The PPC has already provided the SAR. The CCBC claim form states that the defendant was the driver however the SAR has nothing more than pictures of the car and the NTK's. If a scan of the NTK with details redacted would help, then please let me know. I can have one uploaded here.

Fruitcake

The only way that the scammers could possibly know the identity of the driver is if the driver or keeper told them.
If an appeal or any contact was made by the driver or keeper revealing the driver's identity was made, then not relevant land is no longer relevant.

If however the neither the driver nor keeper ever responded, or did not supply the driver's identity, then the scammers cannot possibly know the driver's identity, and certainly cannot prove it.
If that is the case, then the scammers are just assuming without any proof that the keeper was the driver. They may even try to rely on the often debunked criminal case of Elliot vs Loake to claim that on the balance of probabilities, the keeper was the driver.

So, unless the scammers have ever been given proof positive that the keeper was the driver, then go with the Not Relevant Land/Byelaws, keeper not liable defence in addition to all the other points in the template defence.

Show us the amended paragraphs 2 and 3 only (or any more paragraphs if needed, ensuring the paragraphs following have been renumbered).

Get digging into those points and show it to us when it's ready.

nosferatu1001

State the defendan t cannot recall who the driver was on each occasion, which could have been multiple authorised people. The claimant is put to strict proof of their claim that the defendant was the driver on every occasion. 

Umkomaas

Since then, my friend has received the claim form from CCBC Northampton with an issue date of 12 March 2021.

Who is the Claimant as shown on the N1 court claim form (and I don't mean QDR)?

is_data

Umkomaas said:

Who is the Claimant as shown on the N1 court claim form (and I don't mean QDR)?

If you mean the claim form received from CCBC Northampton, the claimant is National Car Parks Limited.