Defence Help

drivingmecrayzy

Hi all below is what I have edited as part of my defence
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the alleged incident. 

3.  The defendant first heard about the penalty charge notice months later by post. Since then there has been a bombardment of 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 4.

____________________________________________________________________________________--
To give some context, from my SAR request I can see a notice to keeper was sent, which I did not respond to. Following that a Keeper Liability Notice. Then the bombardment of Debt Recovery Letters. 

Based on this is the above adequate or does it need to changed. Also am I right in thinking that nothing else with the exception of claim particulars at the top needs to be changed?

Thank you.

Umkomaas

Doesn't make any sense without sufficient context. Do you have another thread open on the forum about this case?  If so, just copy and paste the above to that thread and let this one die. 

We deal with hundreds of these cases every week, no one will remember any of the details of yours. 

drivingmecrayzy

I had a thread with a different issue but though it would be best to start a new one regarding the defence. I can supply context to help. 
I had some confusion helping my wife complete the AOS but I think that has since been rectified. I am putting the defence together on her behalf although she will be signing, and emailing it from herself to the email address supplied in the defence thread.

My wife was not driving at the time of the incident, she received a NTK which was not responded to. Then received a Keeper Liability Notice. Then numerous debt recovery from BW Legal before a notice to claim form. At this point she sent a SAR request to NCP and received imagery of the KLN and the NTK as well as an image from the pay and display machine showing the time paid for.

Umkomaas

it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

Are you sure about this?  In most cases you'd be correct, but NCP does own some car parks. Please check. 

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 4.

My wife was not driving at the time of the incident, she received a NTK which was not responded to.

Another 'please check'. Are you certain the NtK is not PoFA-compliant?  If it is, the identity of the driver is rather moot, the registered keeper can be legitimately held liable. 

If you're uncertain, let us see a copy of the NtK, both sides, redacted of personal or any other identifying detail, but please leave dates showing. 

Redx

It's not a penalty

Private parking companies do not issue penalty notices

3 should give the judge context , type of car park , rebut the allegations in the PCN and ntk , etc

Nobody is interested in the debt collector letters , legitimate chasing of an alleged cebt

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

drivingmecrayzy

Thank you above is the NTK. I have amended defence to say parking notice rather than penalty notice.

I am trying to find out if they own the car park, I do not believe they do but I am double checking. 

@Redx in terms of rebuting the allegations if she wasn't driving what should she be rebuting? 

Sorry for all of the questions I tried to edit defence doc but I am struggling to understand most of it. 

Thank you 

Umkomaas

The NtK is PoFA-compliant. The RK can be held liable. 

Redx

Read recent posts by coupon mad , fruitcake , saynotopcn etc in other recent court case threads to see what 3 should be saying , don't just stay on your own thread , you should read what we have already been reading because the answers have already been written

Or get professional help , because like thousands of others in this predicament , you do not have knowledge of the topic , but bear in mind that many qualified professionals don't either !! I know at least 2 who don't , who I have assisted in their troubles with these private PCN,s despite their sra registrations

Nobody can say that legal matters are simple

drivingmecrayzy

Ok thank you. Where does that leave the defence now? Should it be defended as if she was the driver? Getting pictures of signage etc? 

drivingmecrayzy

@Redx ok I will have another look and see if I can make any sense of it. Thank you