VCS Small Claims Stage - Residential visitor

Coupon-mad

Absolutely NOT your final sentence. That's not a defence.  Your WS is all about the facts.

Base it on RECENT examples, which already more than cover the added £60 issue by appending Excel v Wilkinson and quoting from Government,  but ignore the two I gave you in May, as they are old.

Look at the WS bundles posted by

@wobs2k
@aphex007
@Daiapolon2021

aa92

Okay so just to clarify, I should mention the turn of events when the car was parked up initially and permits which had been purchased through the residential management had been placed in the windscreen of the car etc? But not shoot myself in the foot and mention the lack of registration number written on the permits? 

Coupon-mad

That's right.

Then of course the MAJOR fact that you can't be held liable as registered keeper, due to lawfully transferring liability before court action commenced, and what that means - provide the BPA's Parking News article as the proper interpretation of POFA, and how the Claimant has attempted to mislead you and the court about an imaginary 28 day period!  How dare they?

I edited my reply above with new WS examples for you. Ignore the ones I mentioned way back in May, that I've now deleted.

Jenni_D

IMHO the lack of VRM on the permit is a trivial matter ... the fact that the permits were purchased, correctly dated, and that they were inside the vehicle, shows that they were valid and applied to that vehicle.

(If they raise the blank VRM point then you could use the above as part of your response, to persuade the judge that they're clutching at straws. But your big point is that they're chasing the wrong defendant - they have no claim in law against you as you discharged any liability looooong before any court action was started - did you get a SAR response which shows your communication to them?)

aa92

Jenni_D said:

 did you get a SAR response which shows your communication to them?

Thanks Jenni_D. 

I didnt have time to get a SAR in. However in their witness statement they have included the letter which I wrote to them explaining my friend had use of the vehicle during that time and provided his serviceable address. 

Looking through the correspondence they sent to me after they received and acknowledged this letter, they continued to claim that I had failed to name the driver.

Additionally my address changed shortly after the above letter I sent to them, and in that letter I had included my new address for their attention. They failed to acknowledge this and continued to post correspondence (including demands for payments and a final demand) to my old address (luckily I had post redirection on for a few months after the move).
The small claims however was logged against my correct address. 

Mouse007

However in their witness statement they have included the letter which I wrote to them explaining my friend had use of the vehicle during that time and provided his serviceable address. 

Looking through the correspondence they sent to me after they received and acknowledged this letter, they continued to claim that I had failed to name the driver.

Included in their witness statement? gosh that's .... 

Coupon-mad

This is laughable as a claim!

They've provided a WS already though...you had the same deadline as them. What is it?

aa92

Coupon-mad said:

This is laughable as a claim!

They've provided a WS already though...you had the same deadline as them. What is it?

No as we discussed previously, in the Notice of Allocation for the hearing the court has said that documents which I intend to rely on should be delivered to the court and the other party by no later than fourteen days before the hearing. I am fast approaching that 14 day period! 

I had requested the court to merge the two claims previously also. And again when I emailed them to say I couldn't attend one of the court dates (each claim had a separate date). The Judge then ordered for both claims to be heard one after the other on the same date but clearly mentions that the matters are not consolidated. 

Coupon-mad

Great thanks. That's good.

You realise what your main and winning point is - I think i've made it clear in my replies?!

aa92

Coupon-mad said:

You realise what your main and winning point is - I think i've made it clear in my replies?!

Yes thank you and to the other contributors. You are all a massive support. I started this morning quite anxious that my only defence about transferring liability to the driver was nullified as it wasn't within the 28 days as I had understood it from PoFA. Your help with clarifying this is massively massively appreciated. 

Alongside highlighting that they are attempting to abuse the court process with two separate claims.