Newbie =DCB Legal Letter of Claim/ Claim Form Help. From First Parking LLP

newbie772

Hi, this is the draft of the defence, from the defendant. 
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.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant was not the driver in this case. The driver was an family member who was an additional driver. 

3.     The registered keeper first heard about this parking charge months later from debt recovery letters and never received a Parking Charge Notice from F1RST PARKING. The registered keeper has been harassed by a bombardment of debt recovery letters. Furthermore, 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.

The defendant is wondering
1) Would it be useful to mention in Part 2 the driver was an family member? Or should it simply be written as an additional driver
2) For part 3, no one in our household genuinely recalls receiving the Parking Charge Notice via post from F1RST PARKING. The only letters the defendant recalls receiving were months later from Debt collectors. Would it be useful to write that?
3) The final line references the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. What does this mean and is there any need to further expand on that point at this stage?
4) Lastly, the moneyclaim.gov website shows the defence to be completed online, however the forum says to send it to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk. Why is that?

Apologies, if I've missed something out. Any advice would be great!

KeithP

newbie772 said:

4) Lastly, the moneyclaim.gov website shows the defence to be completed online, however the forum says to send it to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk. Why is that?

The answer to that question can be found in Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from the second post of the NEWBIES thread.
You will see in there...

...trying to fit it in the online box destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read.

Lots of other useful information in that post too.

If you were to try it, you would almost certainly find that your Defence is too long and would be truncated.

newbie772

KeithP said:

newbie772 said:

4) Lastly, the moneyclaim.gov website shows the defence to be completed online, however the forum says to send it to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk. Why is that?

The answer to that question can be found in Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from the second post of the NEWBIES thread.
You will see in there...

...trying to fit it in the online box destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read.

Lots of other useful information in that post too.

If you were to try it, you would almost certainly find that your Defence is too long and would be truncated.

Thanks a lot Keith!
We have read Bargepole's post now and will definitely send it by email.
Would you be able to give your advice on these other points too?
1) Would it be useful to mention in Part 2 the driver was an family member? Or should it simply be written as an additional driver
2) For part 3, no one in our household genuinely recalls receiving the Parking Charge Notice via post from F1RST PARKING. The only letters the defendant recalls receiving were months later from Debt collectors. Would it be useful to write that?
3) The final line references the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. What does this mean and is there any need to further expand on that point at this stage?
Thanks again

Redx

1) multiple drivers are legally entitled and insured to drive the vehicle , or similar

2) first parking only have to prove that letters were sent to the address listed on the DVLA database , even if it was incorrect. They do not have to prove receipt by the keeper

3) POFA is an 8.5 year old law that can hold a Keeper liable , no matter who was driving. So if First Parking complied with POFA , the point about the driver is irrelevant. POFA holds the keeper to be liable , even if they were in Brisbane at the time

newbie772

Here is the SAR the defendant received. The fine was for not being within the bay parkings. The vehicle had the permit to be there

newbie772

Redx said:

1) multiple drivers are legally entitled and insured to drive the vehicle , or similar

2) first parking only have to prove that letters were sent to the address listed on the DVLA database , even if it was incorrect. They do not have to prove receipt by the keeper

3) POFA is an 8.5 year old law that can hold a Keeper liable , no matter who was driving. So if First Parking complied with POFA , the point about the driver is irrelevant. POFA holds the keeper to be liable , even if they were in Brisbane at the time

Okay, thank you RedX. The draft has been amended to the following. Is this acceptable as a defence? it seems quite basic. Or is there anything else that you suggest could be added?

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.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant was not the driver in this case. Multiple drivers are legally entitled to drive the vehicle.

3.     The registered keeper first heard about this parking charge months later from debt recovery letters . The registered keeper has been harassed by a bombardment of debt recovery letters. 

D_P_Dance

It is not a fine.  Have you complained to your MP?

Redx

For 3) check if the correct name and address are on that NTK PCN above , if they are correct then I fail to see the point of 3 , which is a statement , not a Defence , so more useful at the WS stage in several months time !

I did tell you that the procedure is to obtain the keeper details and use the details when sending a PCN.  Non receipt is no defence to a claim where the claimant has followed procedures. The Arsene Wenger defence of " I did not see it " is of no assistance at all. Non receipt is irrelevant , what is relevant is if they obtained keeper details within 6 months from the DVLA , followed by POFA

3 should give the judge details , like the response to the  POC , the type of car park , permit etc , remember that a judge is unlikely to know the details

newbie772

D_P_Dance said:

It is not a fine.  Have you complained to your MP?

No we have not. Sorry what do you mean by it not being a fine? Is it worth sending an email complaint to our MP at this stage?, or is it too late.
Thanks

D_P_Dance

It is an invoice for the harm they allege they suffered at your hands.  Private companies have no power to fine anyone.  It is never too late to contact your MP, personally, I would write a letter. 

















k b