County Court Claim

Coupon-mad

I am still confused; I said move #5 up to become #3 so the same subject flows from #2 to #3.

 It doesn't.

smittenkitten

point noted and changed 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied The Driver was taking his son to the Suthergrey Medical Centre for a pre booked appointment.

3.      The Defendant first heard about this parking charge in Apr 2020 when they received a "Notice To Keeper", and since that date have felt harassed by the constant bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters The car park is for use of patient to the Doctors Surgery called Suthergrey Medical Centre.  The driver was authorised to use the car park as was taking the patient (a minor under 16) for a pre booked appointment.  On booking into the Medical Centre for the appointment the driver entered the details onto the tablet inside the property.  Full proof of the appointment has been issued to Civil Enforcement.  The Claimant should be aware that this situation means there is no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge which is clearly predatory and punitive, unfairly targeting surgery patients.

4.  The defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant failing to comply with the keeper liability requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“The Act”), Schedule 4, including paragraph 9 (2) (f). The Defendant also denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of Parliament, they would have made such a requirement part of The Act.

Umkomaas

and since that date have felt harassed by the constant bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters

That won't have any bearing on whether or not you are liable for the charge. 

D_P_Dance

Read this,

https://simplestudying.com/ferguson-v-british-gas-trading-ltd-2009-ewca-civ-46/#:~:text=Held:,any exceptions for corporate liability.

1505grandad

Pedantic observation  -  I believe the name of the Medical Centre is Suthergrey House

Le_Kirk

You have repeated the second half of paragraph 2 in paragraph 3

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but not the driver but and liability is denied The Driver was taking his son to the Suthergrey Medical Centre for a pre booked appointment.

3.      The Defendant first heard about this parking charge in Apr 2020 when they received a "Notice To Keeper". and since that date have felt harassed by the constant bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters The car park is for use of patient to the Doctors Surgery called Suthergrey Medical Centre.  The driver was authorised to use the car park as was taking the patient (a minor under 16) for a pre-booked appointment.  The defendant has been informed by the driver that on booking into the Medical Centre for the appointment the driver he/she entered the details onto the tablet inside the property.  Full proof of the appointment has been issued to Civil Enforcement.  The Claimant should be aware that this situation means there is no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge which is clearly predatory and punitive, unfairly targeting surgery patients.

For the avoidance of doubt, make it clear that you, the defendant, was not in the car at the time and your knowledge comes from having been told by the driver.

smittenkitten

thank you will amend and send in the defence thank you for your time

Coupon-mad

Why didn't you use the wording I gave you on the bottom of page one?

smittenkitten

Coupon Mad:-

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but not the driver and liability is denied.

3. There was no breach of any 'relevant obligation' therefore the statutory conditions of Schedule 4 of the POFA were not met.  Even if the Claimant served a valid Notice to Keeper, it is a fact of law that 'keeper liability' fails.  The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

4,      The Defendant first heard about this parking charge in Apr 2020 when they received a "Notice To Keeper".  The car park is for use of patient to the Doctors Surgery called Suthergrey House Medical Centre.  The driver was authorised to use the car park as was taking the patient (a minor under 16) for a pre booked appointment.  The defendant has been informed by the driver that on booking into the Medical Centre for the appointment he/she entered the details onto the tablet inside the property.  Full proof of the appointment has been issued to Civil Enforcement and the Defendant has complained to the surgery.   The Claimant should be aware that this situation means there is no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge which is clearly predatory and punitive, unfairly targeting surgery patients.

Coupon-mad

I just thought of something else to add:

The Claimant should be aware that this situation means there is no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge which is clearly predatory and punitive, unfairly targeting surgery patients.  Their system fails to provide an email (or any) confirmation or receipt to verify exemptions when patients use the keypad, so consumers have no way to know if the system has stored and exempted the VRM they have input, or not.  This set up fails consumer law, whereby contracts completed by way of digital exchange of information require a receipt by a durable medium.