Defence Help

Castle

I think the address is the railway station in Southport.

KeithP

By starting a new thread you have carefully sidestepped the issues in your older thread.

Has the issue of Acknowledgment of Service been resolved? You never did tell us.
If not, then your wife's Defence filing date has passed - Defence was due yesterday.

From here on I am going to assume that you have satisfactorily resolved that issue.

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th April 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Redx

drivingmecrayzy said:

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? 

If she was not the driver but is the keeper , then 2 stays the same , and 3 is about the details , the POC , the type of car park , the allegations etc

So if 2 stays the same , then 3 cannot undermine it

No evidence is submitted with the defence either

drivingmecrayzy

KeithP said:

By starting a new thread you have carefully sidestepped the issues in your older thread.

Has the issue of Acknowledgment of Service been resolved? You never did tell us.
If not, then your wife's Defence filing date has passed - Defence was due yesterday.

From here on I am going to assume that you have satisfactorily resolved that issue.

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th April 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Sorry I did not mean to side step this issue. MCOL now shows:

AOS submitted 1/4/21
AOS received 1/4/21 (both original error as highlighted by you)
AOS rejected 12/4
AOS received 12/4

I presume this is the original being rejected then the new one being received by email? My wife received a generic confirmation of receipt email.

Thank you for your help with the dates. I am trying to fugure out how to defend this based on the context of this case. 

drivingmecrayzy

Umkomaas said:

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 land is owned by Network Rail.

SayNoToPCN

In which case it is not relevant land, as it will be controlled by byelaws. 
AS such, if the keeper was NOT the driver, then you must ensure they deny any liability as the claimant is unable to use POFA to hold the keeper liable, and the NtK is deliberately misleading as it claims otherw3ise

drivingmecrayzy

Thank you. Is this sufficient for my defence then? I am sorry I have been reading the threads all afternoon but I am not sure what else I could or should include.

.       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.  It is claimed that the Defendent is liable for costs under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 after the Vehicle was parked at Southport, London Street. The land is not owned by the Claimant and therefore The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not valid in this case. Additionally the Parking Charge Notice To Keeper and Keeper Liability Notice are deliberately misleading in stating this fact.

Redx

It's not about ownership , it's about not relevant land under POFA due to being network rail land and has bylaws covering it (if true)

KeithP

The land is not owned by the Claimant and therefore The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not valid in this case. 

Replace that sentence with something like...

The car park is subject to Railway Byelaws and as such is not 'relevant land' as defined in paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore any driver's liability, which is denied, cannot be transferred to the keeper.

drivingmecrayzy

Thank you for your help (AGAIN!!). I have amended the sentence as you have suggested @KeithP. I am double checking the land information @Redx to make sure. Do you know if there is a way to check this? My current information comes from somone who has worked at that train station for a long time, so I am hoping they would know.

If the land is owned as I believe is the defence good to go then. Or are there any other adaptations that need to be made?