UKCPM County Court Claim HELP

chris0147

And can you see my update post regarding to the paragraph 8, 9 and 12?

KeithP

chris0147 said:

KeithP said:

chris0147 said:

KeithP said:

chris0147 said:

1505grandad said:

UK Car Park Management Ltd  - is this the correct name of the claimant as stated on the claim form?

Not as you have stated.

No, it said on the court claim form the name of the claimant is the solicitor's name. Do I put her name on it as a claimant?

No it doesn't.
Please read your Claim Form again.
What exactly is in the box labelled Claimant?

It said "Frances Bennett" Claimant's Legal Representative

Looks like we need to use pictures.

Oh, it said UK Car Park Management Limited

Then that is exactly what you put in the heading on your Defence - not a name of some company that you have invented.

chris0147

Ok I have done that, so can you please answer each of my questions.

I have now submitted AOS service, so need to force on my defence to get it done asap. I wont send the defence until 12th September.

I have joined the paragraph 8, 9 and 10 so here it is:

8. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

9. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Are they both looking good now?


10.   It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking


Do I need to change from his/her to his?? 


Same for this:

14.   The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.


What about this?

12.   Accordingly it is denied that:
12.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
12.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
12.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.



Does this looks good?

16.   The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory.

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure why you didn't use the template defence at the top of the forum?

And I can't see that you've added the thing you said on 25th August at 8.43pm that you were going to include.

chris0147

Coupon-mad said:

I'm not sure why you didn't use the template defence at the top of the forum?

And I can't see that you've added the thing you said on 25th August at 8.43pm that you were going to include.

I did use it and modify it, but @k@KeithP have confused the hell out of me. He said removed and changed, rejoin all in one sentence....etc. Now you said I didnt use the correct template.

I dont really know why you dont help me out?

It would save me alot of time, less stress and anxiety. 

KeithP

Sorry to have troubled you.

Umkomaas

[DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

I'm sure @KeithP will have!

Coupon-mad

I am sorry but you’ve just lost the respect of the regular posters on this forum and you are swearing about him on another thread, so I won’t be advising further. Totally unnecessary.

chris0147

Coupon-mad said:

I am sorry but you’ve just lost the respect of the regular posters on this forum and you are swearing about him on another thread, so I won’t be advising further. Totally unnecessary.

I havent lost the respect of the regular posters, but he is the one who annoyed me.

You should have seen it.

Anyway, here is the update defence.

chris0147

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXX

 

Between

 

UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

 

-and-  

 

 

XXXXX XXXXX (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.

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

 

 

Background

3.   It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX XXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

 

4.   It is admitted that on the date the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location].

 

5.   The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. Despite there being no need, the defendant displayed the permit supplied to him out of courtesy. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this was the correct permit.

 

6.   It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

7.   The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

8.   Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

9.   To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

 

 

 

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

10.   It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.