Excel - Set aside WON & CASE WON - Excel defeated AGAIN!

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

You just draft a defence using the template defence, top of the forum.

Hi, I know a lot of work has gone into creating templates etc, so you don't have to all repeat yourselves constantly and can therefore help more people. I truly appreciate the support you all give this community. However the reason I asked various specific questions was because I've been reading various other threads that are past the sets aside stage and are at the CPR13.3 defence stage; the advice/draft defences seem a bit more advanced than simply the template. 

For example, in Olive's thread you're all discussing historical timeline photos etc. Therefore I thought you guys might spot issues with signage etc in the photos Excel sent me. I'll put them all in spoilers here again (although spoilers don't open half the time on this forum for me sometimes, must be a browser issue. Link here just in case - Excel Images).

Excel witness statement and photos/exhibits:





They also included a "status log":


They then included my rejected appeal:


They also included a copy of their original PCN letter (which is the first time I had ever heard of the charge). This letter is the only correspondence I ever recall receiving from them, which is when I appealed (image above). They never provided me with any further photos etc, after multiple requests:


Finally, they included images of the car park and signs etc. This is the first time in 4 years they've provided this, even after multiple requests etc (and no replies to my SAR's etc):








In Section 3 of my draft defence in the post below - To be clear and honest, I was the owner of the vehicle and nobody else had legal write (i.e. was insured etc) to drive my vehicle. However, how does this prove I was the drive at the time? I see no way they can prove this and given 4 years have passed, how am I even supposed to remember all the details? Especially after ignored SAR's etc for years. Therefore I have left the template one there in italics and put my other answer in bold, as I'm truly not sure the best way to proceed. Advice would be appreciated.

In Section 2 of my draft defence in the post below - However, with that being said, here's my draft defence. Regarding the SAR - they never did reply, still haven't However they obviously did send me a copy of their Witness Statement and exhibits pack, which contained photos etc. However I assume this doesn't count as a SAR reply? As I asked for:

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself:

- All photos taken

- All letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier

- A PDT machine record from that day, of payments made. Whilst VRNs can be partially redacted I must insist on you supplying this.

- All data held, all evidence you will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN, NTK

- A list of all PCNs outstanding against you and/or this VRN – please note that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims.

Question 1 - Reading other threads, should I request a contract from Excel Parking Services Limited, for their authority over the car park. As they definitely do not own the land? This seemed a great help in the defence of this case, link here. Excel didn't send anything like this with their Witness Statement. I have posted everything they sent.

Question 2 - With regards to question 1, I did a search for the address and site name on the PCN, which is "Broomhill Roof Top Pay & Display Car Park, Sheffield, S10 3BB". I did this search on this website:

- https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry - It takes me through to this link:
- https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QuickEnquiryInit.do - Which when I enter the post code returns all these results:

How can I narrow down the car park address so I can purchase the information for the correct one? I would use this to show Excel do not own the land etc. The car park is a rooftop one and covers 5+ different shops.

Question 3 - I have been reading some of the threads about telephone hearings and how I should assume the Judge won't have received/have access to my Witness Statement etc. Is this actually true?! It seems preposterous, there's so much to go through in such little time if they haven't already seen everything. I know they're extremely busy but still... Is there anything additional I need to do to prepare for this eventuality?

PLEASE FIND DRAFT DEFENCE IN NEXT POST - Had to split due to forum length limit

milkybk

IN THE MILTON KEYNES COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

Excel Parking Services Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX

 (Defendant)
____________________
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 and to the best of my knowledge, I was the driver of the aforementioned vehicle in question. However the Claimant repeatedly refused to provide me with photographs etc when requested during my original appeal in 2017, therefore I cannot be sure of the full facts. The Claimant's Data Protection Officer also refused to reply to my Subject Access Request email, sent 04/072021. The Claimant also ignored a follow up email chasing the SAR on 07/07/2021. By law, the Claimant should have responded without delay and within one month of receipt of the request. This was a simple request and therefore no extension should have been required. Therefore, without the full facts, liability is denied.  

3.  If you are only the registered keeper and were not driving, you will be saying when you first heard about this parking charge (by post, months later?) and maybe how harassed you felt by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, and you might be taking the point that 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.

It was dark, as shown in the photos from the original alleged parking charge, where the number plate of the vehicle cannot even be clearly made out. Therefore it could be argued that a an error could easily have been made when inputting a VRM, however I do not believe I did. I believe the machine made an error in recording my VRM. In my Subject Access request, I asked the Claimant for a PDT machine record from the day of the alleged parking charge, of all payments made. They did not supply this.

Fluttering ticket situation - Should I apply this too if I go with my bold statement above?

4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

5.   It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

6.   Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

7.   The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

8.   Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

9.   Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

10.   Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

11.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

12.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

13.   The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

14.   Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

            (i)   Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

           (ii)   Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

Both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and:

           (ii)    Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

Where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

15.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

16.   In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

17   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

       (b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The                  Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek                further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

18.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Statement of Truth

I, XXXXXXXX, the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

milkybk

The spoiler system on this forum drives me nuts sometimes haha. Just randomly misbehaves, trying to fix the first post now..

Le_Kirk

Yes, I've never worked out that spoiler thing BUT you don't have to use it.  Also you have left the instructions in your defence in paragraph 3 and you really only need to show us the parts you have edited, such as paragraph 2 & 3 (which reminds me to say every paragraph needs a number) and we don't need to check the whole template unless you have made changes to it.

1505grandad

As above  -  also D written in third person so no I, me etc as per rest of template D.

Coupon-mad

As per Olive’s thread, yes we are saying that post set aside (if you are post set aside yet?) you should be sending a witness statement (your story in the first person) and evidence exhibits as well as a costs schedule and your defence.  All of it. Even though the Judge only asks for a defence.

milkybk

Le_Kirk said:

Yes, I've never worked out that spoiler thing BUT you don't have to use it.  Also you have left the instructions in your defence in paragraph 3 and you really only need to show us the parts you have edited, such as paragraph 2 & 3 (which reminds me to say every paragraph needs a number) and we don't need to check the whole template unless you have made changes to it.

Hi - I left those in there on purpose. As in the first post one of my questions was do I actually need to admit to being the driver? It's 4 years ago. I can only assume I was, there's no evidence proving either way.

The only thing I do know is that whenever I've used that car park (loads when I lived in Sheffield) I always paid, even though half the time you had to walk to the machine at the other end of the car park as they'd break. Bad lighting too, plus next to a staircase inhabited with very unpleasant and inebriated folks..

I've removed the spoilers to ensure everyone can see all the images from Excel.

1505grandad said:

As above  -  also D written in third person so no I, me etc as per rest of template D.

Thank you, will change it for final draft. Right now I don't know which defence i want to use, that's why I am asking for opinions here.

Coupon-mad said:

As per Olive’s thread, yes we are saying that post set aside (if you are post set aside yet?) you should be sending a witness statement (your story in the first person) and evidence exhibits as well as a costs schedule and your defence.  All of it. Even though the Judge only asks for a defence.

I haven't had the set aside yet, it's in 2 weeks. I just want to be prepared, so I can give the Judge a defence then and there if required. Seems sensible.

I've sent a draft order, witness statement, supplementary witness statement, costs schedule etc but only for the set aside. Nothing for the defence of the actual claim yet, I know that comes later. Like I say, I just want to get ahead of the curve.

Can someone please read the questions I had in the 1st post and comment on them..

Coupon-mad

Q1 and Q2:  The template defence already deals with the allegation that there is no landowner authority so you don't need to add anything about that, nor purchase any info about who owns it.

Q3:  This is your application and the Judge will have your WS and other submissions.  It was only during COVID when they were working from home that they might not have had access to documents and emails.  

What strikes me is that you should be noting and raising the following in your defence:

- there's no evidence of no  payment, nor failure to display, nor any breach

- their photos are of signage in daylight on completely different dates.  This event was in the dark

- the aerial view they've created shows just one PDT machine (no proof it was working) and a couple of 'entrance signs' and an ANPR sign - but ZERO 'information signs'.  None whatsoever.  This is not evidence of an agreed contract by the driver.


And also, why are Excel pretending that your application revolves only around 13.3 of the CPRs, when in fact any case involving a failure to double check the notoriously unreliable DVLA address of a Defendant, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice that specifically requires them to check, fits squarely with CPR 13.2? 

They are hoping to lead the Judge off on a tangent, don't let them.  Use CPR 13.2 and start with that in the hearing.  CPR13.3 is merely a safety net, an alternative fallback position if the Judge is not with you that tis is a mandatory set aside situation.

Also don't let their rep pretend that they 'didn't receive' your draft defence.  Email it to the court and Excel at the same time.

And don't forget at the end of the hearing to ask the Judge to award your costs to be paid by the Claimant.

Redx

as for who was driving, if you dont know, you dont know, dont speculate, it is for the claimant to prove their case once the set aside is granted

so for 2 , say keeper and liability is denied. Multiple drivers can use the vehicle at that time so it is unknown if the defendant was the driver or not on an unremarkable day so long ago

or something similar

you only admit to being the driver if you absolutely KNOW that you were the driver

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

Q1 and Q2:  The template defence already deals with the allegation that there is no landowner authority so you don't need to add anything about that, nor purchase any info about who owns it.

Q3:  This is your application and the Judge will have your WS and other submissions.  It was only during COVID when they were working from home that they might not have had access to documents and emails.  

What strikes me is that you should be noting and raising the following in your defence:

- there's no evidence of no  payment, nor failure to display, nor any breach

- their photos are of signage in daylight on completely different dates.  This event was in the dark

- the aerial view they've created shows just one PDT machine (no proof it was working) and a couple of 'entrance signs' and an ANPR sign - but ZERO 'information signs'.  None whatsoever.  This is not evidence of an agreed contract by the driver.


And also, why are Excel pretending that your application revolves only around 13.3 of the CPRs, when in fact any case involving a failure to double check the notoriously unreliable DVLA address of a Defendant, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice that specifically requires them to check, fits squarely with CPR 13.2? 

They are hoping to lead the Judge off on a tangent, don't let them.  Use CPR 13.2 and start with that in the hearing.  CPR13.3 is merely a safety net, an alternative fallback position if the Judge is not with you that tis is a mandatory set aside situation.

Also don't let their rep pretend that they 'didn't receive' your draft defence.  Email it to the court and Excel at the same time.

And don't forget at the end of the hearing to ask the Judge to award your costs to be paid by the Claimant.

Perfect. Thank you, this is genuinely EXACTLY the info I was looking for.

FYI - My supplementary witness statement (which I will actually lead with) specifically calls out the fact they've tried to jump over CPR13.2 - It will be the main line I pursue.

Supplementary witness statement I sent a week or so ago. I was really pleased with it tbh, sent to Excel as well, they didn't reply as expected. I will also be raising with the judge they ignored SAR's from 2017 and 2021:

__________________________________________________________

SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT XXXX

__________________________________________________________

I am writing to you in reference to Jake Burgess's email, dated 1st September 2021.

On behalf of the Claimant, Excel Parking, Mr Burgess has inferred that only CPR 13.3 applies to my set aside case. However my N244 application specifically states "The Defendant seeks an order setting aside the judgment dated 03/09/20 pursuant to CPR 13", not just the single clause Mr Burgess wishes to focus on. Furthermore, all my correspondence with Excel has clearly stated that the main grounds for my set aside hearing are based on CPR 13.2, please see emails attached showing aforementioned correspondence.

CPR 13.2 states: 

"If the default judgment has been wrongly entered, under Rule 13.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules the court must set aside the judgment." 

Requirements for a mandatory set aside of a default judgment:

If the Claimant makes an application for a default judgment on the basis that no acknowledgment of service or defence has been filed within the required time periods and this is wrong, the court must under CPR 13.2 set aside the default judgment. This is the case even if there is no defence on the merits. The underlined statement overrides Mr Burgess's attempts to jump straight to CPR 13.3.

Therefore, my detailed Witness Statement and Exhibits clearly shows that the Judgment has being defectively served. Therefore CPR 13.2 applies to my case and the Judgment must be set aside.

Furthermore, in reference to the corresponding points in Mr Burgess's email:

6.This amounts to an admission that Excel Parking (and their legal partners) never recheck an address under any circumstances no matter how long ago the acquired the information. Their trade code of practice says otherwise, as do the rules of the court.

7. Again, Excel voluntarily admit that they're aware of this being common issue but as above, they'll never double check even after years. Furthermore, the vehicle in question was sold in March 2017, please see DVLA slip acknowledging transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Therefore, Excel relying solely on this piece of information is inadequate. [EXHIBIT J]

8. The Claimant accuses the defendant of ignoring correspondence. Stating as a fact I ignored something is disingenuous, as they have no evidence to prove so, it's conjecture at best. I cannot ignore something I knew nothing about.

9. As with point 8, I have not knowingly received any correspondence from BW Legal. It is impossible for Excel to know whether or not this is the case. Given my Witness Statement and supporting evidence clearly shows that I had moved address, it's likely I didn't receive anything.

Note:

Mr Burgess's opening statement in point 1 of his Witness Statement states "The facts and matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief."

With the above in mind, points 8 & 9 or Mr Burgess's Witness Statement do not meet the criteria of point 1. Mr Burgess makes guesses at best, no evidence submitted to back up guesses. Therefore I would say Mr Burgess is in breach of his declaration of truth, which is a fraudulent act under the circumstances, which could easily be considered contempt of court.

10/11/12: If the claimant had done the mandated checks they would have found the address was no longer valid. The fact that a third party agency, DCBL, was able to do this almost 4 years later proves this point.

13. Mr Burgess cites CPR 1 - I have endeavoured to deal with my case amicably and in a timely manor. I attempted to save the court time and expense by offering Excel Parking the opportunity to agree to a mandatory set aside, with them assuming all costs for the process. They have refused. Therefore my only option is to have this hearing, as Excel are unlawfully holding my credit rating at ransom, through a defectively served claim. [Exhibits K]

I have been forthcoming and honest in my Witness Statement and evidence. Excel refused to provide me with any information relevant to my case until Mr Burgess's most recent email. As you can see in Mr Burgess's Exhibits, in my original appeal of the of the alleged parking charge I requested information to allow me to better defend myself. They ignored this request. They also ignored my multiple Subject Access Request's, even though they are mandated by law to provide this information. They are subject by law to provide this, as the defendant has a right of access to it. This meant, at the time, I was unable to further defend my case and any subsequent appeals would be inconsequential.

Therefore I believe Excel and Mr Burgess are in breach of CPR 1, which states: "Ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence".

Finally, I will quote the IPC's Code of Practice, which states: 

22 Debt and Debt Collection

22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings.

This clearly shows that Excel are in breach of their own Code of Practice. The claimant did not attempt to check my details, even though over 43 months had passed between the issue of the alleged parking charge on 21st February 2017 and the claim being filed on 3rd September 2020.

Therefore, with all of the above in mind, I would ask the Judge to strike out the majority of Mr Burgess's and Excel's points, as the ideas and/or notions they have put forward are founded on probabilities, without any demonstration of their truth and are therefore nothing more than conjecture.  

Statement of Truth:

I, XXXX, the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Yours faithfully,

XXXX etc

Redx said:

as for who was driving, if you dont know, you dont know, dont speculate, it is for the claimant to prove their case once the set aside is granted

so for 2 , say keeper and liability is denied. Multiple drivers can use the vehicle at that time so it is unknown if the defendant was the driver or not on an unremarkable day so long ago

or something similar

you only admit to being the driver if you absolutely KNOW that you were the driver

Thank you. So what I do know is that I was the registered keeper and nobody else was officially insured to drive it. So I shall admit to being the keeper. However I am not willing to admit to being the driver at the time, regardless of access people may or may not have had. So I will deny liability.

I will draft up a new defence and post it here later. Thanks guys.